Stipulate what happened to her in his will? SURELY the thought should have crossed his mind that he would die during the war, and that he would need to provide for his very young daughter. I like this movie, but that part bugs me.
share[deleted]
Fail on the writers part. "Maybe the people wont notice that huge gap". Riiight.
sharecan i just point out that when her father dies in the book the same thing happens? it's the way it was written, although the movie changed it by sending him to the war instead of just having him get sick and die, if they wrote in that he left everything to her in his will, there would be no story.
-
"You're all talk, Hamill! You never even finished Jedi school!"
In the book, he died POOR. He had nothing whatsoever... or so he thought. Later, after he had died, his partner came into diamonds in the mine they had owned. Then he devoted his life to searching for Sara so he could raise her, care for her, and give her her share of her father's wealth.
This movie was horrible - just horrible. The book was SO marvelous. I do hope you will read it. Once you do, you'll realize how poorly they constructed Sara and how badly they mangled a perfectly splendid story.
This movie was horrible - just horrible. The book was SO marvelous. I do hope you will read it. Once you do, you'll realize how poorly they constructed Sara and how badly they mangled a perfectly splendid story.
I agree, the book was my absolute favorite as a child and while the film wasn't completely faithful to the book, I thought they worked the location change, having Becky as an African-American, etc quite nicely. The production values are really lovely and I thoroughly enjoyed it.
shareI've only recently read the book and I completely agree with you. Maybe it's because I saw the movie first, I don't know, but the book was only ok to me while I absolutely adored the movie. I don't understand why people complain that they completely changed Sara, she's essentially the same but actually more likeable and more realistic as a 10 year old girl. The Sara in the book was basically the epitome of a Mary Sue character. She was so good and perfect and everyone loved her and she was spoilt but she was still lovely to everyone and so on. Movie Sara at least had a couple of flaws which actually made her more likeable and even after pulling one prank (god forbid) she was still a kind and genuinely nice person and still a great role model for little girls.
shareI love both the book and the film for different reasons. This film is the perfect definition of an adaptation. It takes the main storyline, changes what needs to be changed to work on screen for a limited time but overall keeps the messages and themes from the book.
shareI just assumed Crewe's assets were siezed by the British government due to some error, or perhaps some crooked dealings. (That lawyer who delivered the bad news of Crewe's death didn't look too trust worthy.) Maybe there was some kind of bogus lawsuit that led to the seizure of his property..one of the schoolgirls (the bully) said she'd read about him selling "poisoned" crackers in India (obviously he wouldn't be guilty of such a thing & was apparently cleared of any wrong doing later ...) I guess the movie makers didn't feel the need to explain just why Crewe's seeming demise would leave his daughter destitute, just that it did...the story was told from a young girl's point of view anyway, such details weren't necessary.
shareCML is right. In the book he died poor but then the diamond mines were discovered to be valuable, not worthless.
shareHe didn't sell poisoned crackers. Lavinia was just getting a dig into Sarah. She wasn't liking all the attention and curiousity the other girls were giving Sarah, so she said that to them so she wouldn't seem so perfect.
"Everybody lies.."
It's honestly the fault of the film writers. They adapted and changed so many things from the novel but weren't able to actually make things line up. In the book, her father dies penniless and he wasn't in war. War isn't mentioned in the book actually. He had no money to provide for his daughter so that is why Sarah ends up being a servant. However, later her father's FRIEND looks for Sarah because it turns out her father wasn't poor at all and the the mines her father had invested in turned out to be diamond mines and Sarah's money is restored and she is even richer than before.
shareInteresting. So, it sounds like the creators of this version of the film merely wanted to modernize/update the original version of the film, because the two films are very similar to each other, with minor changes in the newer version. But from what you and others who have read the book are saying (I have not read the book, but I am now interested in doing so) that it is vastly different from the book.
As to why the British Government would seize any remaining assets the father might have, I'm not familiar with British law regarding death and taxes, but I'm wagering a guess that to cover any taxes the father's "estate" might owe to the government, that is why they seized everything? Thereby leaving Sarah not only an orphan, but destitute as well.
EMOTICONS ARE BACK! YAY!
in the book he is more of an irresponsible young man who doesn't think of these things which shows in how he overindulges sara at every whim. people not making wills is common enough, sometimes they just put it off or don't think they will die so young
-----------------------------------------
let's not go to camelot, it is a silly place