MY PROBLEMS With Michael Landon

[jamesmo]

Michael Landon was a great man, LH was mostly a great family show and good But..

ML.
1) did lil research - there is no mountains in Minnesota
2) made people up, James, Cassandra. Garveys, ALBERT, Nancy
gave very very little to carrie and grace, her REAL sisters
3) changed so much - they were only in Walnut Grove a lil bit, they were in de smet for years, changed how long they lived, where, how
4) MARY NEVER GOT MARRIED
5) left out some very important people from books
6) Ma never worked in town she never would have thought of it

[Dianne3]

What I didn't like, was having Mary's baby, along with Alice Garvey, die in a fire.

The series ends for me there.

Having Mary go blind was bad enough, although I know that did happen to the real Mary.

[Mijada]

I didn't like all the made up people either. I agree they could have had more storylines revolve around the younger sisters. Half the time they treated Carrie like she was retarted or something.

[EricIdlefan]

He made people up to make the show interesting. The show and/or movies don't always go by the "book" at least 90% of the time!!

[Bugiddle]

Originally posted by lurkernomore
What I didn't like, was having Mary's baby, along with Alice Garvey, die in a fire.

Yes, I thought this was awful!! Michael Landon did seem to like tragedy...Later on Albert was killed off due to leukemia in a Little House movie, remember?

Carrie should have been given more of a part in the show. A lot of the time it was like she hardly existed.

Most of the extra characters included in the show that were not in the book, I liked. I thought they added quite a bit to it. Most of the time, I think characters were added to extend the life of certain ongoing aspects of the show - like when they added James and Cassandra, because Mary and Laura were getting older, so they needed some more young children. And with Albert, Michael Landon probably thought the Ingalls household just needed a boy at some point. Albert was a great addition, and allowed viewers to see Charles interacting with a son, as opposed to daughters.

[jayman75]

One of the best examples of taking advantage of a book is "Midnight in the Garden in the Good and Evil." The film was nothing like the great story that was written.

The true fans of LHOTP should begin with the books -- the direct connection to the events of the time. Relying on the TV show is... by no offense... lazy. The books give much more than the show did. By reading the books, you'll get more from the life of Laura Ingalls Wilder than the show.

[jamesmo]

Bugiddle, yea I know he wanted a guy he did do good scenes with Albert, BUT james and cassandra ?? he had grace and carrie for younger viewers. he could have done SOO much with grace and carrie that James and cassandra was unneccasry. I know what u mean tho

and Hello ?? one of most famous things about Charles Ingalls was his BEARD. and Michael Landon refused to have one.

[jayman75]

Originally posted by jamesmo
and Hello ?? one of most famous things about Charles Ingalls was his BEARD. and Michael Landon refused to have one.

That's why we had Victor French and Merlin Oleson...

[Mijada]

Originally posted by jamesmo
Bugiddle, yea I know he wanted a guy he did do good scenes with Albert, BUT james and cassandra ?? he had grace and carrie for younger viewers. he could have done SOO much with grace and carrie that James and cassandra was unneccasry. I know what u mean tho

The addition of James and Cassandra made no sense to me whatsoever. Pa was always saying how he barely had enough money to support the kids he had and when the Sanderson kids needed a home he couldn't take them in, yet a few years later he goes and adopts two kids that he barely knew. The addition of Albert didn't bother me too much but when the Cooper kids came on the scene I began losing interest in the show.

[PracTz]

Originally posted by Mijada
The addition of James and Cassandra made no sense to me whatsoever. Pa was always saying how he barely had enough money to support the kids he had and when the Sanderson kids needed a home he couldn't take them in, yet a few years later he goes and adopts two kids that he barely knew. The addition of Albert didn't bother me too much but when the Cooper kids came on the scene I began losing interest in the show.

I agree- and then they had the city-hating Ingalls sell their farm and move to the Big City so Pa could. . work in a men's store while Ma worked in a job and five kids under 18 had no one really watching them?! Huh! I think the REAL Charles Ingalls would have likely been insulted had that been suggested as a career move for him!
OK, so to keep our interested in Walnut Grove, they had to have a family. Laura was the only original Ingalls left there and she was married with a baby but her family was 'too young'(and Almanzo was treated like wallpaper for too many episodes) so they had to adopt Manly's niece. ..and the inexplicably dull Carter Family moved into the old Ingalls homestead so viewers could have a 'mature' family. Unh-uh!

[phoebe7165]

Originally posted by Mijada
I didn't like all the made up people either. I agree they could have had more storylines revolve around the younger sisters. Half the time they treated Carrie like she was retarted or something.

You mean she wasn't?!! I'm just kidding, so nobody get too upset. I'm sorry but I think the girls who played Carrie--BOTH Lindsey & Sydney Greenbush were terrible actresses. Both of them!! You'd think one would be better than the other. I can understand when they were real little, but as they got older, you'd think their acting would've gotten better, but it didn't, and that's why they weren't used that much. I think maybe they could've cast an older Grace and used her more in the show.

[Bugiddle]

Phoebe, I was thinking sorta the same thing about the Greenbush twins. I'm sure they were nice girls, but they just didn't have any personality, so you're right - that must have been the main reason why Carrie was not featured more. I guess Michael Landon felt the need to bring in "fresh blood" later on with James and Cassandra, since he couldn't really do anything with Carrie, and Grace was still too little...I did think that the little actress who played Cassandra had much more personality than the Greenbush twins.

[Mijada]

Originally posted by phoebe7165
I think maybe they could've cast an older Grace and used her more in the show.

That would have been a good idea.

[hawaii five-o]

They should have recast Carrie while they were at it.

[B&W fan]

Originally posted by Bugiddle
Yes, I thought this was awful!! Michael Landon did seem to like tragedy...

That's the real crux of the issue, as far as I'm concerned. I loved the show, and thought it was extremely well casted, with fantastic actors all around (ok, "Carrie" was weak). But the fascination with tragedy that Landon had was very apparent early on in the show. Within the first couple of episodes, he has to kill off the Irishman that he befriended when working for the railroad. Remember that he even made sure we saw the misery of him telling the widow and son about it. That was a major downer!

From there we got other episodes with death and other assorted tragedies. I'll never forget the 2nd season Christmas episode where Landon killed off the father of another family during the blizzard. And again, he had to show us the widow and children, in the church, as everyone else was singing carols and thanking God for safety. What an horrible way to end, of all things, a Christmas episode!

Yea, I loved the show, but I feel Landon went overboard with the death and tragedy angle WAY, WAY TOO MANY TIMES!

B&W "btw, the 4th Season is coming out shortly on dvd" fan