Jump to content
 
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...

Little House On The Prairie reboot


Recommended Posts

I have read major buzz about a new one hour "Little House" drama reboot. Alison Arngrim has already said she's in, but it seems pretty quiet after that. That should be very interesting. One, if I have done my math right, with the younger cast members (Gilbert, Anderson, Arngrim, etc.) being in their fifties, that would make the time frame the 1920's? And the buzz seems to indicate they will return to Walnut Grove. So questions loom big.....will Walnut Grove be a much bigger and thriving metropolis? Not like Chicago, but a much smaller scale. 

Alison Arngrim said she'd love to be the new witch to take over Oleson's Mercantile. 

Who comes back and who doesn't? Melissa Gilbert once said she wouldn't do a reboot because the original show is in syndication all over the world and they don't need to have two shows at the same time. IF she sticks to that, can they be successful? Does Melissa Sue Anderson carry it?

This should be very fun to watch as it unfolds and details start to come out.

In a reference to TopBilled's "Aging out" thread, is this reboot aging in? 😄

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Spoiler...

The town of Walnut Grove was blown up in the last episode (TV movie) and the land was taken over by the railroad.

So how will they be able to do a new series?

Will it be a continuation or a reboot?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, KidChaplin said:

From what I have read, this is in production work now. Very early, but it's a go. I guess that would have to be explained.

I guess if it's a reboot as opposed to a continuation, then they can just start over from the beginning. Would they remake some of the most classic episodes or rewrite the main storylines?

It's an interesting idea.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I would guess pick up where they would be in real life. Kids being grown, the adults in their professions, etc. 

What I would love to see is, at least one shot, of maybe Laura going to the cemetery to visit Charles and Mr. Edwards. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, TopBilled said:

Spoiler...

The town of Walnut Grove was blown up in the last episode (TV movie) and the land was taken over by the railroad.

So how will they be able to do a new series?

Will it be a continuation or a reboot?

The last I saw of this story, Charles was living in the city working at a shop. They were no longer on the "prairie". I think this will be a reboot. If done well, this could be a hit.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, GGGGerald said:

The last I saw of this story, Charles was living in the city working at a shop. They were no longer on the "prairie". I think this will be a reboot. If done well, this could be a hit.

The trick with this concept is that they have to cast the kids correctly. 

Melissa Gilbert, Melissa Sue Anderson and Alison Arngrim were all exceptional child actresses.

They will have to find kids that are just as good.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm afraid they will cast smarmy smart aleck types and ruin the project. Those three were actually very good in those roles. A main reason that show still pulls ratings all over the world.

Living in a rural prairie setting is universal so many cultures can relate to it. In this world today where the whole world can watch a show the same day, this can be a big hit if done well.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Alison's Nellie Oleson was straightened out by her husband, Percival.  If I remember, they wound up having a baby girl. So would she be a brat? Or would Nellie teach her right. Speaking of Percival, that's another they would have to "kill off" since Steve Tracy passed away.

A thought that just hit me. Maybe....the show is based on all of the kids being grown (Laura and Almonzo's girl, Rose, Nellie and Percival's daughter, etc.) and the adults (Laura, Almonzo, Nellie, Mary, etc.) make cameos or guest appearances?

Or do we see everyone come back that's still around?

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, GGGGerald said:

I'm afraid they will cast smarmy smart aleck types and ruin the project. Those three were actually very good in those roles. A main reason that show still pulls ratings all over the world.

Living in a rural prairie setting is universal so many cultures can relate to it. In this world today where the whole world can watch a show the same day, this can be a big hit if done well.

I agree.

Landon and company also struck gold when they cast Matthew Labyorteaux to play Albert (a fictional character since the real-life Ingalls family never had a son).

Labyorteaux was initially hired to play Young Charles in an episode that had a flashback of a time when Charles Ingalls was a boy. He obviously impressed everyone and they created the role of Albert for him to play on a regular basis. He fit right in and worked beautifully with the other kids, especially with Melissa Gilbert.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, KidChaplin said:

Alison's Nellie Oleson was straightened out by her husband, Percival.  If I remember, they wound up having a baby girl.

On the show Nellie & Percival had twins. In real-life there was no Percival. The real Nellie Oleson was actually named Nellie Owens and married a man called Henry Kirry. They had three children, none of them were twins.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks, TopBilled. I forgot they had twins.

And then there was also Grace Ingalls. 

This should be very interesting to watch it play out. I'm pretty excited to see what happens and how. I fear it will have a "Dallas" fate. The new "Dallas" sounded great, but didn't seem to pan out. Especially after Larry Hagman passed. No J.R., no Dallas.

Will this fly without Michael Landon? 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, KidChaplin said:

Thanks, TopBilled. I forgot they had twins.

And then there was also Grace Ingalls. 

Well one of Nellie's twins on the TV series was a girl, yes?

The real-life Ingalls family did have a daughter named Grace. There were four daughters (Mary, Laura, Carrie and Grace).

The real Mary Ingalls was never married. (Meaning that Mary's husband Adam on the TV show was a fictional character.) She was basically a recluse and lived with the parents all her adult life...she continued living with Caroline after Charles died. After Caroline passed away, Mary was looked after by Carrie and Grace.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hope the Ingall's are more realistically portrayed.  That is NO Micheal Landon.

caroline-and-charles-ingalls-parents-of-

 

REPLICA of the actual house - more humble that what the series portrayed.

1d03532fd4ced8ae596db57384cc1f13.jpg

sQPc4fyEtaVJV8jN7OwQp0Sz6ZCpep4GxGfkL2pu

 

 

Laura's adult home

a-young-laura-ingalls-wilder-on-the-porc

 

After the daughters grew up, from left to right: Caroline ("Ma"), Carrie, Laura, Charles ("Pa"), Grace, and Mary.

ingalls.jpg

 

 

 

images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQJx8Qo3jTQJCY9ZSZ_3gZ

Her name was actually Nellie Owens

d819276b6d762f680130433d290423f9.jpg

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, TopBilled said:

I agree.

Landon and company also struck gold when they cast Matthew Labyorteaux to play Albert (a fictional character since the real-life Ingalls family never had a son).

Labyorteaux was initially hired to play Young Charles in an episode that had a flashback of a time when Charles Ingalls was a boy. He obviously impressed everyone and they created the role of Albert for him to play on a regular basis. He fit right in and worked beautifully with the other kids, especially with Melissa Gilbert.

Remember, in those days, adopting children was common. Parents or whole families died of disease leaving a child often. So that fit in with the times.

I don't think its so important to follow the actual family story. This is not a documentary. If they choose to insert plot elements that help display how people lived in those times, I have no problem with that. For all those who can't bother to open a history book, this might be a way to help them see how things were.

Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, GGGGerald said:

Remember, in those days, adopting children was common. Parents or whole families died of disease leaving a child often. So that fit in with the times.

I don't think its so important to follow the actual family story. This is not a documentary. If they choose to insert plot elements that help display how people lived in those times, I have no problem with that. For all those who can't bother to open a history book, this might be a way to help them see how things were.

Yes, you're right, it's not a documentary. It's more docu-drama.

Of course the writers repeated the orphaned children routine a few seasons later, when Albert was grown. That time two kids named James and Cassandra were taken in by the Ingalls when their parents were killed in a wagon accident. James was played by a young Jason Bateman.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I just read the link that was posted above, the article at ew.com-- and it says they are planning a reboot. That means it would be a remake not a continuation.

A whole new cast probably. Though Alison Arngrim says she'd like to play Mrs. Oleson since she'd be the right age for that role.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The interesting part of the story was the family trying to survive on the prairie. I remember one early episode where Charles went through all this trouble to build a home. Then a gov't official shows up to tell them that land had just been given back to the Indigenous people and he would have to leave.

That's the sort of story the only this show really emphasized. Walnut Grove was a bit after the fact. Its what we remember from the show. But, I would like a bit more back story. Not just a retread of the former series. That story has already been told.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 5 months later...

Anything new about the supposed reboot (or continuation or whatever that may be planned?).

My mom watches the reruns on UPTV, of course she also watched the show during its original run. She'd be very interested in a new LITTLE HOUSE (though I have had to tell her that the show wasn't actually accurate to life of the real Ingalls family).

A mixture of real life and fiction would be interested. I don't know whether Mr. Edwards was fictional or not, but I always liked his character, I wouldn't mind keeping him on, same with Reverend Alden.

I would also keep Nellie but eliminate some of the later characters that I felt weren't needed, like James and Cassandra. Also no Adam (not that I begrudged him being added on the show, but here in the 21st century television world, storyline wise I don't think it would hurt a bit to have Mary remain a spinster as she was in real life).

Albert....eh, can take him or leave him. Wouldn't miss his absence though. As already been mentioned, Charles and Caroline never adopted any boys.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Bethluvsfilms said:

Anything new about the supposed reboot (or continuation or whatever that may be planned?).

My mom watches the reruns on UPTV, of course she also watched the show during its original run. She'd be very interested in a new LITTLE HOUSE (though I have had to tell her that the show wasn't actually accurate to life of the real Ingalls family).

A mixture of real life and fiction would be interested. I don't know whether Mr. Edwards was fictional or not, but I always liked his character, I wouldn't mind keeping him on, same with Reverend Alden.

I would also keep Nellie but eliminate some of the later characters that I felt weren't needed, like James and Cassandra. Also no Adam (not that I begrudged him being added on the show, but here in the 21st century television world, storyline wise I don't think it would hurt a bit to have Mary remain a spinster as she was in real life).

Albert....eh, can take him or leave him. Wouldn't miss his absence though. As already been mentioned, Charles and Caroline never adopted any boys.

 

I don't think the idea was to be totally accurate to the books as much as showing how life was in those days. Otherwise, people could just read the book. Because books are always better than movies/TV. With people dying of almost any illness in those days, adoptions were rather common. And there was pressure for women to marry then.

I'd rather any reboot be authentic to the times, however they were.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
© 2021 Turner Classic Movies Inc. A Time Warner Company. All Rights Reserved Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Cookie Settings
×
×
  • Create New...