The Larkins - Sunday night reboot of Sunday night The Darling Buds of May

[MacMahon]

What do we think?

Pa was handsy in the book though and Ma never minded. At least the 90s version was accurate to the books. This literally is the family … doing stuff.

Mariette always reminded me of Marilyn Munster.

I've just watched this on the iplayer, and it is utterly feeble. Quite a few words used out of context for the time it's set in. Peter Davisons vicar is way out of line re his swearing and flicking the V's, and basically they should have left well alone.

I really wanted to like it, I adore the original series. Something about this remake just felt off, a bit too new, not cosy viewing. The kids clothes were too new, mariettes clothes too posh and neat. It had too much of a moderness about it

However ma larkin was cast really well

Yes, the clothes looked like immaculate, newly made outfits - on virtually every character.

I wasn't keen. They all felt like caricatures of the original series.

Really disappointed. My mother’s family came from a Kentish village and I loved hearing the H.E..Bates accents in the original series. What we got last night were Londoners. This was the first thing that I didn’t think suited Bradley Walsh. There was no subtlety and I so missed hearing the accents that I heard regularly when I visited my grandmother and my mother’s cousins in the fifties/ sixties. Even the pies looked plastic and as unreal as the characters.

Oh dear oh bleedin' dear, why do they bother? BW is abysmal. he seems to know he's not a patch on David Jason. he only plays himself in everything anyway.

There must be other comfortable style shows they could've rebooted.

Though to be fair CZJ always looked a bit unreal in the original. very pretty and beautifully dressed. The twins couldn't act for toffee . It has been repeated on ITV3 (may still be for all I know).

It's a 100% better

Why are the tv companies doing these reboots, All Creatures Great and Small did not need a remake and neither did this. Not fussed at all … there are lots of beautiful books that would make great Sunday evening tv and remaking fairly decent tv classics seems lazy and unnecessary.

True Fiercest But dh (who's in the biz.) was saying the companies have huge arguments over what will get the viewers. So a name like BW will do it. They probably don't have the writer "interfering" with their script etc.

I found it all too harsh and spiky. Never watched the original, I was down the pub that year!

This didn't need a reboot. The original was the best - just show it again if they think there are new viewers out there who will appreciate it. There's too much rebooting of classics - are there no writers of original material anymore?

No one is going to state the obvious then?
Far too woke and PC for me. Coming from Kent in those days, believe me, it just wasn't like this. I can't bear the tick box exercises and the nepotism.

ITV3 has just (or is still) showing the original. Worth watching.

Apart from Ma, the casting was really bad and the outfits weren't authentic (50s child here )

What annoyed me most though was everyone calling him 'Pop' - his name to all but his family was Sid!

It’s relaxing Sunday night viewing. Nothing much happens, calming and kind. Perfect for these troubled times.

I'd love a Famous Five series, OP!

It was a bit clunky and strangely stilted.
Ma seemed a bit awkward and Mariette was miscast - a sort of CZJ but without the warmth and charm. The vicar is horrible and not funny.
I understand that they're trying to make it diverse with non white characters, but unless the storylines seriously change, it won't be a reflection of people of colour in a Kent village in the 1950s. Unless anyone on here has that experience and can correct me.

I really like HE Bates, I really like Bradley. I thought this would work, but it didn't.
About 100 years ago when I was at primary school, there was a radio version. Egg and chips, with the larkins on the wireless. Perfick.

@Maireas I completely agree about Marianne being miscast. They went for someone who looks a bit like CZJ but she wasn’t particularly magical at all.

Very disappointed with it as it feels too cartoon like and compares poorly to the previous version with David Jason and Pam Ferris.

Bloody awful casting for starters. I think it’s tricky trying to modernise it for today’s audiences by casting people of various ethnicities into a few of the main roles when in reality, that wouldn’t have happened back in the fifties. I think if you’re going to attempt to do that, you need to re-write the entire story and set it in the current time.

Far from Perfick!

@Fiercestcalm

I thought the All Creatures re-make by Channel 5 was actually pretty good and an improvement on the original, in some ways. I was always annoyed that they cast Christopher Timothy in the main role when he clearly wasn’t Scottish. He always portrayed Jim Herriot as a bit wet, in my opinion. I wondered whether it was because they wrongly thought that viewers couldn’t cope with hearing a Scottish accent although they didn’t seem to have a problem when Cameron was introduced?

I think Mrs Hall in the new series is far too young and glamorous looking though.

@ANameChangeAgain

It'll probably be a grower, but I'm finding it a bit flat at the moment. It would have been better to come up with a new family in a similar era and setting to avoid the inevitable comparison.

I agree. I feel the same about the new version of All Creatures. When the originals were so well cast, can't really see the point of just doing the same with different actors.

My thoughts exactly, @SandysMam.
As for All Creatures Great and Small, at least in this version James is a Scot and Helen a Yorkshirewoman. I never thought Christopher Timothy was the right fit.