The Famous Five

[PelvicFloorClenchReminder]

Has anyone seen the new adaptation that was on yesterday?

I couldn't get on with it at all, felt it lacked warmth. I do absolutely love the 1970s one though, so that may have skewed my opinion.

@ReindeerRider
I agree, it was dreadful. It should have been a slow character led (including Kirren Island) program. No need for the back story of the missing Aunt for example.
An opportunity missed.

I find it a bit odd when 'classics' are so fundamentally rewritten. If the original storyline and characters aren't of interest, why do a re-write? Just write a new story with new characters - which this basically was, with the 'Famous Five' brand slapped on.

To be fair, there are already a few adaptations of the series that are relatively faithful to the original stories. I’m not sure that there is a need for another. The 90s adaptation was set in period (unlike the excellent early 80s series).

They really had to create a new plot line inspired by the original series - and this plot was definitely Blyton-esque. The characters are slightly modernised - Anne less insipid, and Dick has a usp as the geeky fact-supplier rather than just another random brother, but otherwise it’s really not that removed from the original premise.

It was truly terrible. After the pathetic Agatha Christie "Murder is Easy", yet another classic has been ruined by BBC's incessant tampering and poor casting. Why it doesn't just write some new stories for the modern world is beyond comprehension.

Just watching this now and really thought it was an 80s production with the opening credits. It's not giving me the feeling I got when reading the books when I was young and I loved them. No mentions of lashings of ginger beer yet either!

The music is really odd, it feels like they are trying to channel stranger things and it isn’t hitting the mark. I’m sure there was only a year or two between Anne and George too but there seems to be about 8 years gap. The bad guy was very panto and quite frankly if they were fooled by his Pete Dochertyesque vicar they deserved to get locked in an underground tomb.

Load of rubbish. Dull, dull, dull

Wasn't George's surname Kirrin in the books? Why have they changed it to Barnard?

Well between this abomination and The Couple Next Door which had very strange locations and dubious Leeds accents I am confuddled with the strange approaches taken to book to screen adaptations these days. It's a step too far for me.

Marking my place - I will watch but I’m nervous! Famous Five was my obsession as a child (tbh most of her other books too) and I have all the 1970s and 1990s series on DVD.

I was excited to see this but I thought it was awful - they were dressed as if it was pre-war but speaking like modern teens. The story made no sense and wasn’t even slightly true to the originals although the setting was lovely.

It's the age ranges of the children that threw me. Julian the oldest, I thought Dick and George were the same age, with Anne a year younger than that. The age range on tv were much too large.

Also, George's mum and aunt were sisters, so if George's mum was black surely the cousins mum would be too, and all the children would be biracial?

Sorry...got that wrong

Julian- the oldest
Dick & George- a year younger than Julian but the same age as each other
Anne- a year younger than Dick & George

Even if I'm a year or two out, the age range is still smaller than that on the tv.

I was bitterly disappointed with it as I was excited to watch it

UTTER CRAP…I was so looking forward to seeing this, what a disappointment. I grew up on these stories and they’ve got it all wrong. The language in that era, the age differences, stealing Timmy,definitely no dead bodies, the awful music and no such thing as ruddy curse of Kirrin. Utter crap.
Going to watch The Comic Strips versions, and try and find the one where they’re grown up.

Hated it! If it wasn't for the names, and the reference to Kirrin Island, no one would know it was the Famous Five, bore no relation whatsoever to the Enid Blyton stories.

@SSingToTheSky My obsession too - so much so I have bought many of the books as an adult. This adaptation will not bring you any joy or nostalgia!

Ok so a mixed view so far! I’m going to watch today (with trepidation) and report back.

Exactly!!

I was excited to watch it with DS, and couldn't believe how badly it was done! The script was so painfully clunky... DS spent more time amused by me facepalming myself. Don't even get me started on the dead body!

I don’t think I’ll bother, turned off Murder is Easy after 20 minutes as the lead didn’t know what to do with his face and it made me uncomfortable.

The age range is presumably to enable the greater freedom that children allegedly had in the days of the FF not to seem so glaring, while also having characters that are relatable to the target audience - who are 5-10ish. You’d hardly let four kids from 9-12ish go off on a train to London from the west (Dorset? Wales? Cornwall? Not sure where this version is supposed to be set).

The cousins are related through their fathers in this iteration, hence George is a Barnard not a Kirrin, and George’s mother is black but the cousins have no apparently black heritage. I don’t know why they’ve chosen to do that - for the whole Annie thing, possibly, or for other reasons that may become evident in later episodes.

This is definitely something that has to be approached as a modern reworking inspired by the original series. It clearly isn’t meant to be a faithful adaptation of the originals, or to suffer from their particular failings (which is just as well as it does bring its own raft of screw ups to the party).

I’m not overly concerned by the dead body. It’s not very Blyton - I don’t think there were ever actual deaths in any of her adventure books - but it does at least legitimise the keeping of Timmy. I think they’d probably call it “rescue” rather than theft as he was left on a boat after his owner’s disappearance (later, confirmed death) so obviously wouldn’t have survived without intervention. There were some questionable moments not dissimilar to that in the original books.

Watched with my 8 and 11 year old who were both baffled. Youngest one rated it 2/10, oldest rated it 6/10. I found it very odd how the French baddie was able to get away. Famous Five always stoped the baddies. Also who was the diver?!

It was utterly bonkers. I loved it. Watching Jack Gleeson chew the scenery as a correspondent shoe wearing priest or a hallucinating indiana Jones wannabe has genuinely made my day.

And George's mum essentially telling her to STFU while the mad man's mad mum fed them all scones and cakes definitely felt Blytonesque.

Agree there were some hilarious moments, and I was salivating over the cakes and scones.

Good grief - what a steaming pile of 💩this was.

I loved the books as a child but this was just awful. Right from the opening credits (wtf?) and the awful incidental music. The baddie was just dreadful. It felt like something we’d watch at school in the 1980’s.