The new Swallows and Amazons film is awful, sadly

[TheCountessofFitzdotterel]

Total pile of crap. They've tried to make the Walkers more relatable by making them incompetent, but now that John can't sail and Susan can't cook you're just left wondering wtf Mrs Walker thinks she's doing letting them go off on their own.
Add in a hot mess of an unnecessary Russian spy plot which just ends up slowing it all down, and that's an hour and a half of my life I'll never get back.
Jessica Hynes and Harry Enfield were good and Kelly Macdonald was lovely. And the youngest Swallow was very cute. Otherwise, bah.

Oh, I SEE.

Well no wonder they leave out the all-famous 'If not duffers , won't drown' telegram, then! The whole point being that the Father trusts them to not get into danger, not that he wants them to go and H&S training!

They don't leave it out, that bit is in there.
Except then they constantly act like duffers. I'm just glad Roger makes it through unscathed.

Basically, Ransome respects children, both as characters and readers. The film does not.

They mentioned the fact that Nancy's real name is Ruth but they didn't explain that it is because pirates are ruthless!

I also don't know whether I saw a mistake the first night they were in their tents. They had lost their matches, John was reading by the light of a torch but I am sure Tatty/Titty was reading by the light of a lantern.

I wondered about that too. It looked a bit bright for a torch but I couldn't be absolutely certain it was a lantern.

"Basically, Ransome respects children, both as characters and readers. The film does not."

Good analysis (of the books, and by the sound of it, the film)

Have been reading the book with my DD this summer. She's only 4.5 and loved it. She's never been to the cinema and I had thought of taking her to this but the plot changes (eg spy element) and this thread have really put me off. Is the spy plot bit too dark for a 4.5 yr old? Maybe we should just get the original film, which I loved as a child.

Yes I thought it was a lantern. When it was turned off it "turned down" more like a lantern would. And I too thought "but they've got no matches".

snowmouse I would get the original film to be honest. This is worth seeing if you've seen the other but the original is so special I think it is to be recommended over this. Especially for a 4yo who might be confused by the plot changes.

Yes it was a lantern. It was in the bottom right of the screen. It also looked awfully like the wind up one I bought for dd from Trespass when she was camping. It wasn't flickery as I remember my df's oil lantern.

Snowmouse If she's read the book and loved it then I would stick with the original, which sticks fairly closely to the book.
The spy bit isn't really dark, just I think if she is expecting to see S&A it will just confuse her and she'll struggle to follow the spy bit, which unfortunately is much more the focus of the film. The original "children have fun making up their own adventure which isn't really dangerous" is totally lost.

At one point they showed a lantern standing on the floor of the tent with clothes and stuff touching it and I thought, 'Fire risk! Duffer alert, duffer alert!'
There were a lot of bits where they were doing very dangerous things - jumping off the cliff on the island with no knowledge of how deep the water would be could end very badly. Don't try this at home kids.

I can't wait to go and see it!!
In my pre baby childcare days I looked after Hannah Jayne who plays Peggy! She was always a drama queen then (not in a bad way but putting on shows and making up stories to act out)

It didn't seem right that the Mother had a Glaswegian accent whilst the children had posh English ones. I preferred Virginia McKenna as the mother in the original film.

Oh dear. So it wasn't faithful to the novel - what film ever is? Just go along and enjoy the film in its own right. Normal (ish) children having fun, using their imaginations. We enjoyed it.

Then, if you haven't already, read the book. It will be different. Enjoy them both and stop whinging.

(I've just watched the trailer on YouTube.)
The mother in the book was Australian, not sure about the father.

Kelly McDonald was also Steve Buscemi's wife in Boardwalk Empire. Mesmerising. I used to watch the series mostly for her and her frocks!

Maybe I will go and see it now...

I didn't mind Mrs Walker's accent. I am prepared to believe the kids got their accents from their posh schools and from Captain Walker.
Did I mention I liked the bit where she lit up a fag on the train?

I saw it yesterday. I knew about the spy plot and didn't mind it as much as I thought I would, but it was a bit too silly in places (like the chase on the train). I kind of like the idea of Uncle Jim being a spy though as he's quite mysterious. I don't think you ever really know what he does in the books, just that he does a lot of travelling.

I agree with the poster who didn't like the new incompetent Susan. The whole point of her character in the books is that she's a pseudo-adult. The others are only allowed to go off and have all these adventures because Susan is there to cook, make sure they go to bed on time, clean their teeth etc.

I didn't mind a bit of squabbling but thought they overdid the arguing and John's nastiness to Roger. Loved Roger though. A vast improvement on the Roger from the 1970s film. I agree Nancy was too old. She's also meant to be someone the others all look up to and I didn't get that vibe from her. Not sure how I feel about the long hair as I really feel they would have their hair bobbed but guess it was to show they were a bit wild. I really wish they'd kept in the "Amazons are ruthless" line!

I'd missed the link between the carnival and Rio! I liked the Rio scenes.

One of the other posters mentioned Winter Holiday. That's also my favourite book (hence username) and I would LOVE to see an adaptation of that one day. I've often thought about how it could be done.

Winter Holiday is one of my favourites - I have a few! The Ds were always easier to relate to than the Walkers.
I'm sure there are plenty of reliably snowy places you could film it.
The one I would love to see filmed is We Didn't Mean To Go To Sea, because it's such a tight story it would work film-length very well.

Yes Missie Lee would be very hard to film & possibly inappropriate

We Didn't Go To See is another of my favourites. It's very dramatic compared to some of the other stories.

Missee Lee is my least favourite. I only read it as an adult and found the way the Chinese accent written very off-putting and also inappropriate by 21st century standards!

I think where WDMTGTS would fall down in a film version is the ending. The exciting bit is in the beginning/middle of the film. I love the safe feel at the ending where Father has taken over and all is naturally going to be fine-but I can't see that working in a film.

Winter Holiday would be lovely filmed.

However I can't see them getting in more than one sequel for a couple of reasons. John/Susan/Nancy/Peggy will be too old. They'll be 18yo pretty much assuming they film next year. And combine that with the moving on in time (1935), aged 18yo in 1937 John would be looking at joining up-my granddad was that age and he joined the volunteer reserves because he could see war coming and wanted to be as prepared as he could be-he reckoned it saved his life in the Battle of Britain.
The girls would be taking jobs-and probably looking at war work. They would be too old to have imaginative trips to the North Pole when the war was a reality.

For the Walkers the war would be real: their Father would be genuinely at risk. No way could they ignore that.

Hmm, I could imagine them using the war though, in a sequel, they would just have to keep the characters and completely ignore the original stories.

Re WDMTGTS, I agree the ending is weak. In fact, maybe that's the answer - make WDMTGTS with a completely new Nazi plot, but starting with the initial 'anchor dragging, getting swept out to sea' story. They could rescue some refugees on a boat instead of a kitten, if that wasn't too inflammatory....

The problem with the war timing is only really in combination with the ages though. If John/Susan/Nancy/Peggy were only about 12/13yo they could be evacuated there and be aware of the war but it wouldn't effect them so much.
As they're clearly sixth form age then John would be realising that joining the Navy was going to be a big thing, and the girls would almost certainly be looking at taking jobs.

With the war going on outside then I think it would look a little fiddling while Rome burned for them to be having imaginary Robinson Crusoe adventures at 17/18yo.

And actually they could have had a spy plot in 1932 just as much.

You could have WDMTGTS with the addition of the war, so coming back would have potentially more impact as they avoid mines/enemy ships. However neither Jim Brading (who would then have to be about the same age as John which would rather change their relationship) and John would be able to forget the impact the war would be having as no doubt they'd both be thinking of joining up.
Maybe they could tie it up with the small boats for Dunkirk