BBC to bring the famous five to TV

[Dinopawus]

Just seen this in the Times.

For the love of Timmy, can the BBC please leave George as the Tom-boy she is?

Im not confident.

Famous Five go on a progressive adventure for new generation in TV adaptation

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/25335ec2-1388-11ee-b768-bb6d328f2d92?shareToken=8042c7bc7e8225df45e0537407fb335a

Timmy will be a 46 year old furry. If you complain about Five Go Wild for Pup-Play you'll end up on some BBC list.

Same here, as my name on here suggests. She was my hero, too. I also think it was very much of its time. Surely, there must be some 'realistically' written adventure stories for kids. If not, there is a gap in the market for a writer.
I would read it!

The 1978 series is on Britbox/ITVx at the moment. There was also a series with Jemima Rooper as George from the 1990s though I can't see that streaming anywhere.

They're all - the 70s and the 90s series - on YouTube. I love them!

For all of Blyton's limitations and frequent one-dimensional writing, Michele Gallagher and then Jemima Rooper both played George very well as the character that she clearly was: a girl living in times when girls were denied a lot of the fun and opportunities that boys had, for no reason whatsoever, and she was obviously not willing to put up with that.

Why would we now want to seriously regress to a bunch of stereotypes, forcing children into narrow, uninclusive label-cages, when this was not even attempted way back in the 70s? How could it possibly be more enlightened to say that "Of course girls can be like this/do these things too" as opposed to "Girls can't be like this or do these things, unless we re-classify them as boys"?

Blyton herself exhibited a lot of what were probably seen as 'masculine' characteristics for her time in how she worked and lived her life - a soft, submissive, unworldly little housewife, she most certainly was not. But she never, ever for one moment claimed to be anything other than a woman.

How could it possibly be more enlightened to say that "Of course girls can be like this/do these things too" as opposed to "Girls can't be like this or do these things, unless we re-classify them as boys"?

LESS enlightened, obviously!

If they're going to be fully inclusive, they also need to represent the transage community. Uncle Quentin should actually be 30 years younger than his own daughter, niece and nephews!

Sorry but I see no reason why any of the characters cannot be people of colour and I would welcome this. This after all is a children's adventure story. It is not going to be an historically accurate drama.

Agreed, there is definitely a gap in the market for a ‘traditional’ children’s adventure story with a diverse cast, but FF doesn’t fit the brief, without changing it out of all recognition.

There was another similar mystery series written around the same time which was loads better and I'm trying to remember the author and series title....

It wasn’t the ‘Lone Pine’ series by Malcolm Savile, was it? It was set in Shropshire, I think, forever in my mind a place of adventure and brooding landscapes! (Note to self: must visit Shropshire sometime). I remember loving them!

But if George was a real girl today, she probably would be non binary or trans. There aren't many tom boys anymore. So making a modern day version of the Famous Five, it would be unrealistic for George not to be non binary or trans.

Everything that made her "want to be a boy" then sadly is still around today, albeit in a slightly altered form. And "I want to be a boy" has only one interpretation these days.

Aunt Fanny - all his/her dreams come true

But if George was a real girl today, she probably would be non binary or trans. There aren't many tom boys anymore. So making a modern day version of the Famous Five, it would be unrealistic for George not to be non binary or trans.

No, she would still be 100% a girl. She would be George Kirrin - an individual girl with her own unique personality, character, skills, likes and dislikes - not just some generic stereotypical girl who can be stuffed into a tiny box labelled 'girl'.

To add, it's crystal clear from how she is written - and the time in which the stories are set - that George never rejected being female; she just rejected the very narrow constraints that the time she lived in dictated were what a 'girl' was.

I adored the 1970s series. I grew up with that.
It was a different world when they filmed there in the New Forest, in the late 70s.
Sometimes I watch the episodes on YouTube.
It was so long ago when it was filmed and that makes me sad.

If it’s modern day, Uncke Quentin and Aunt Fanny will be arrested for child neglect. Fancy letting children sleep on a moor then sail to an island unsupervised!

Blyton has stated that George was modelled on herself and how she felt as a child. So George is very much just a tomboy who would one day grow up to be a somewhat gender non-conforming (for her era), reportedly bisexual woman. The thing about Blyton is, no matter what else she was, she was a grafter. When I realised that many of the books I read as children were written by consortiums or a string of ghost writers. Ie, Carolyn Keene, writer of Nancy Drew never existed, nor did Kate William who supposedly wrote the Sweet Valley books for the real Francine Pascal. I assumed that most Blyton books were also ghostwritten. But no, all the books published under her name during her life, were written by her.

A woman with two children and an alcoholic husband with PTSD found the time to write over 600 books, set up charities and have a hobby of nude tennis, while having a series of affairs with people of both sexes. I know there are reports of her being an asshole but she honestly sounds fascinating.

A woman with two children and an alcoholic husband with PTSD found the time to write over 600 books, set up charities and have a hobby of nude tennis, while having a series of affairs with people of both sexes. I know there are reports of her being an asshole but she honestly sounds fascinating.

I completely agree. Whether or not she was a paragon of virtue is irrelevant; she was a truly remarkable and unique woman.

If they really want to do period pieces with a lot of diversity, maybe they should adapt the Magic Faraway Tree.

Yes, but George if she was a real girl living these days would be labelling herself as trans or non binary. She would obviously still be a girl, but there is no way she would be labelling herself as one.

Every little girl like George who I knew when they were little have now renamed themselves and come out as non binary and then trans as teens.

I am not arguing that George would actually be a boy if she was a real life person in 2023. I'm saying that she would absolutely be using they/them or he/him pronouns and arguing that she was actually a boy.

So if the FF was set in 2023, it would be normal to have George being non binary or trans and very unrealistic if George considered herself a girl. Because that is what has happened to all the girls who would have been tomboys in 1970s.

So if the FF was set in 2023, it would be normal to have George being non binary or trans and very unrealistic if George considered herself a girl. Because that is what has happened to all the girls who would have been tomboys in 1970s

I’m not sure that’s strictly true - the girls that my teenage and young adult DC’s know who are declaring themselves as teams have struggled with mental health problems for many years, rather than being tomboys.

I'm pretty sure in some of the books there was a friend character whose nickname because of his darker skin was "Sooty". I doubt he'll make an appearance in the progressive version.

I'm pretty sure in some of the books there was a friend character whose nickname because of his darker skin was "Sooty". I doubt he'll make an appearance in the progressive version.

In Five Go To Smuggler's Top, wasn't it? I thought he was just called Sooty as a nickname because his surname was Lenoir (i.e. 'the black one')?

I thought progressives hate Blyton anyway. Surely she’s a Nazi / fascist / racist / cis-hetero-normative author who would probably also have been a TERF if she was still alive today. I can’t work out how they will get away with using her stories even when they have been diversified beyond all recognition.

Yes, that's right. He was called "Sooty" because of his Lenoir surname and because he had black hair. His real name was Pierre.

The kid in Five Go Off in a Caravan was called Nobby. Hopefully not quite as literal a nickname as for old Sooty... 😉

I agree. I don't think a black Anne Boleyn is appropriate and I'd love to see original programmes about African or Chinese women for instance.

I often love stories set in entirely different places.

However, I think from the POV of a risk adverse production, where they are scared to death of being called out, it is risky. Because almost no matter what you do someone will say they are getting the politics wrong, or if there are Europeans in the story they are npt being as awful as they should be, or there isn't enough context of some kind.

And realistically, when you are creating story for westerners that is set in a really different place, it does sometimes have to be done in a way that means they can understand it. I sometimes like to watch Indian tv shows, and one of the things I find is that i can tell sometimes that there is something going on that I am missing, or some interaction or event has significance that I am missing. Occasionally dialogue I can see is important but I don't understand what they are talking about really.

Which I expect in stories from other cultures, in other languages, but it's not really what you want when writing a story about a place like India to show in the UK, at least not too much of it.

So they always run the risk of being accused of pandering to a white, by which they mean western English speaking, audience.

I don't think any adaptations of old books or shows being made now are any good. They are largely shockingly bad.

I am not arguing that George would actually be a boy if she was a real life person in 2023. I'm saying that she would absolutely be using they/them or he/him pronouns and arguing that she was actually a boy.

I disagree. Why wouldn't being a girl be enough for her - anybody can be (and is!) a girl if they are female and under 18.

Most girls who would have identified as tomboys as children are now content to be female/women - but how they dress, act and live their lives covers the whole enormous gamut of what women/people can do and be.

I know it is the current Zeitgeist, but we really need to be moving away from the bigoted prevailing ideas that simply being the girl or boy that you are is not 'special' enough. Your sex is a fact; but your individual character and preferences are entirely up to you.

When I read the books to my sons we often end up on a little digression about what a prick Julian is

I always loathed Julian.

I won't bother to click on the link. And I sure as hell won't be watching it. I have no idea what the BBC plan, but I can guess. I don't need any more 'progressive' garbage shoved down my throat. The BBC is morphing into a propaganda unit.