Also, are we going to ignore that the Lifetime version completely omitted Christopher's ambition to be a doctor (although he becomes a doctor in the sequel movies), which is not only a key part of his character but also helped their survival during their imprisonment.
Did we watch the same movie? Christopher knew he wanted to be a doctor before the attic, and while they were in the attic, he is often buried in medical books. They didn't omit that.
I also wanted to add to Christopher’s traits. He takes his father’s word in becoming a doctor and his mother’s trait of being an artist. He has two talent traits.
Yea, after watching the original movie I was annoyed they took away his doctor knowledge in the lifetime remake. Overall I just prefer the original though
The 2014 version falters in many ways. Kiernen Shipka and Mason Dye had already hit puberty, so that part of the coming-of-age aspect didn't translate well. The 1987 movie actually made a smart move by making Cathy and Chris older, so they wouldn't have to portray that. The Lifetime version also tried to cram too many plot points into 90 minutes, which made the story very rushed and lessened the emotional impact. And don't even get me started on the cheap budget (CGI-looking mansion, small interiors that were obviously sets, etc). I can really only give Lifetime props for including more from the novel, but that doesn't make it better. 1987 has problems that were mostly due to studio interference, but VC Andrews approved the script, she met the actors and the crew. It will always be my favorite.
@@soph.studios21 The 1987 movie made Cathy and Chris older: Cathy is 14 and Chris is 16. Kristy Swanson was 16; Kiernana Shipka was 13. Mason Dye was 20 when he played Chris; Jeb Stuart Adams was 25. Not a huge difference. Kiernan Shipka and Mason Dye had obviously already hit puberty and there were no attempts made to disguise that fact (i.e. the birthday party at the beginning) which makes the coming-of-age aspect unconvincing. V.C. Andrews herself approved of the cast of the 1987 movie (most of which was shot in 1986).
In the Garden of Shadows book you find out that Christopher and Corrine are half siblings as well uncle and niece. And why Olivia (the grandma) is so sour and all
Yeah, I don't believe anything in Garden of Shadows. At no other point in the series was it even hinted that Chris Sr and Corinne were actually half siblings. I always thought it was stupid to make them more closely related anyway - it didn't change anything. Neiderman's writing is pretty obvious - especially in GoS and the last three books of the Heaven series. The contrast between his and VCA's style is not difficult to spot.
it's interesting i feel the original had more abuse from the grandmother and didn't show much of the incest story line, but the story with the new one showed more had more abuse from the mother and had showed more of the incest
39:44 Not only would Corrinne have to forfeit everything if it was ever discovered that she had children out of incest but also if she ever had any children with anyone else. Her father really wanted to drive extra nails into her
I honestly never understood what Malcolm's intent with that was. I get the clause was a safeguard so that she couldn't get away with lying about not having inbred kids, but why ban her from having kids in a moral way as well?
@@vcandrewscritiquer I think it was another form of punishment. He was basically telling her he wanted her to keep her legs shut since he considers his daughter an incestuous whore
Remember, Malcolm told Corrine that he would leave everything to her if she never married and stayed with him, and she replied that she wanted to get married and have babies. He decided to keep her in boarding schools and away from boys. Corrine betrayed him and broke his creepy heart like his mother did. So she had to pay.
I think each movie is a good representation of the time they were made. The older movie has the characters hollow, heavy on the dramatics. The new movie makes the characters seem more authentic instead of focusing on drama.
Louise Fletcher as the Grandmother scared the absolute hell out of me as a kid. I even picture her when I read the book. I love Ellen Burstyn and she did good but Louise made Olivia a true monster. Stone cold and very intimidating.
The dad/Cathy scene in the old movie and tells her she's his favorite, is because she is very upset about the mom's new pregnancy and she's afraid he won't love her the same. Almost exactly like the book.
I feel at least one reason the original was more brutal than the lifetime version was because of the times. The lifetime version was made during the era of movies/tv where media in general seemed hesitant to show too much violence, especially towards children, especially young children, so that alone softened some of the story's inherit darkness.
Nice video! Please do more VC Andrews series! = Heaven, Audrina, Dawn, etc... They're all fun. :) also I had a hilarious memory while watching this: when I was about 6-7 I saw the first Flowers movie and also Golden Girls. Being a dumb lil boy I thought all old people looked the same, so I thought Rue the actress who plays Blanche on "Golden Girls" was the grandmother in "Flowers." I thought the VC Andrews kids were locked in Hollingsworth Manor and 'Flowers in the Attic' was somehow Blanche's backstory before she calmed down and moved to Florida to become more promiscuous... LOL
My mom had a full time job in the 70s. So did my dad. Neither had a college education. They learned on the job. This is why I get confused by the book, unless the mother just didn’t want to try and wanted to earn her family’s riches and was ok with the masochist way she would have to be with her parents.
The book and the remake takes place in the 50s. Back then, while it was possible for women to get a job, it was much harder compared to the 70s due to the pressure for women to be a housewife among other things. Women couldn't even own their own bank accounts at that time. That didn't come about till the 70s in the US. The plot seems a bit more believable given the context of when its set. However, this plot doesn't make sense in the original movie. That took place during the late 80s, so the mother could've easily found a job and was just a gold digging diva. Though, that is true for the other versions of the mom, and I think what you said is a huge part of it as well.
@@sorcerersapprenticeThis just isn't true. Federal legislation protecting women from being discriminated against by banks was passed in the 60s and 70s. But there are records of American women with personal bank accounts going back to Colonial America. It was rare at that time, but it happened.
@@vcandrewscritiquer Idk how about Margaret Thatcher, Anne Coulter, Elizabeth Holmes, or Kelly Conway? Women who’ve said & done far worse things than Spears ever has done. Wtf Britney Spears do to make you make such a harsh character judgement? You’re literally comparing her to an abusive parent character. When Britney has in fact been at the mercy of abusive parents, or have you been oblivious to the illegal conservatorship she was under for over a decade? Are you still living in 2007 when she was pop culture’s public punching bag? It’s 2024, we’ve collectively agreed that was misogynistic BS to do. She’s been through horrors I hope you’ll never have to endure. Shame on you.
I...did not know that. To be honest, when I thought of "self centered blonde" she was just cognitively the first thing that came to mind, since I've heard of her...issues. Next time, I should probably check my facts
I find it interesting that in both versions Carrie and Cory are already kids at the start. In the book, Cathy finds out that her mom is pregnant and that's why she gets jealous, prompting her dad to give her the music box and ring.
I can see why both adaptations changed it. The pacing in the original book felt kind of off to start with Cathy as a seven year old just for one chapter and then jump right into being a teen. I think the story flows better starting them off with the age they are now, hence changing Cathy being worried that the twins will distract her father from her to his new VP job distracting from her in the Lifetime film.
Lifetime adaptations of V.C. Andrews books just make me want to cry. I like to think that HBO or Amazon would do a better job. I also wish that the family would hire a new ghost writer. The latest books are just a insult to Andrews.
I’ve read this book and every other until the orphans series when I was over it…… but to say any of them are my favorite book… no.. let me recommend “Their Eyes Were Watching God” by Zora Neal Hurston or “The Portrait of Julian Gray” by Oscar Wilde.
I didn’t know about the 1987 movie, but after watching the 2014 movie I read the books. I probably won't go watch the 1987 version because it seems like the 2014 followed the books better.
Garden of Shadows was drafted and planned by VC Andrews so it would still be cannon bc it’s what she intended for the series. How does someone claiming to be a critic of her work not know that? Might wanna consider changing your name on here
Andrew Neiderman (the ghostwriter) has confirmed that he never saw any of VCA's unfinished manuscripts when he finished the Dollanganger series and the Casteel series. VCA did sign contracts to write the Dollanganger prequel and the third Casteel novel about a month before her death, and her family did find an unfinished manuscript for the next Casteel book, none of which was used.
@@triciacarey2288 It was confirmed in The Woman Beyond The Attic. It was just a publicity move when it was claimed that she left behind drafts and outlines for upcoming books. She was planning to write the FITA prequel as she had signed a contract to do it, but she died before she could write it.
Hi i liked the newer version better ,it seemed to stick to the book more and really told the full story and were more scenes from the book in it so liked the newer one better ,just an opinion ,
I saw the film before reading the book. After reading book I saw the film again. The book is always better than the film Virginia Andrews wrote about family tragedies I read 2 other novels, Petals On The Wind is a sequel of to Flowers In The Attic
There were actually two more. The third was If There Be Thorns and the fourth, Seeds of Yesterday. If I recall right the fourth was a prequel to the whole series... Corrine's story.
My biggest issue is revealing that Olivia wasn't Corrine's birth mother. I felt it completely ruined the whole irony of how Corrine had become an evil more cruel birth mom to her kids than her own was.
All great thrillers need a great villain. And the 80's Flowers in the Attic has two of them: Victoria Tennant and Louise Fletcher. Heather Graham looks like a spoiled teenager (not the mother of 4 children), and Ellen Burstyn is too old and feeble to be scary. I give the win to the original.
I know this is a lighthearted video and not like a text analysis of the series! But you had referred to chris as the male love interest and i was just wondering if that was facetious or not! Its my first time watching your channel and i like it but dont know your writing style yet! Just wondering if you did actually view the series as romance or as chris as a love interest because i never got that from the book or the sequel. Like to me it often felt like he was way more into cathy than she was him and the whole point is generational trauma and falling in the footsteps of your parents yk? To where it never read as romance to me but rather like a slow burn thriller or tragedy. Like chris is inevitably the partner she is with but its dysfunctional and tragic and portrayed as such. For example I would say Oliver in call me by your name is the love interest bc despite it being a bittersweet and dysfunctional relationship it is still a romance it is framed as a romance, or i’d say Mr Darcy is the love interest, but i wouldn’t say Wendy Torrance is a romantic lead despite being like the wife of the main character you know? Or Dolores Hayes is not the love interest because the story isnt a romance in reality, its only a romance on paper in Humbert Humbert’s twisted mind but its clear through subtext that Dolores was meant to be seen as a victim. Maybe i am being nit picky but to me theres a different between love interest in a romance story and a romantic partner/object of affection in a Story thats not to be read as a romance. if that makes sense :) Just wanted to know your thoughts on the series as a whole as a fellow lover of the story:)
I personally felt their relationship, as immoral and perverted as it was, did feel legit and not just lustful. As the story progressed, I felt Cathy and Christopher were transitioning from just a brother and sister to an actual married couple meant to fill the roles of their parents, with their dad being deceased and their mom too busy living the high life to be there for them in their time of need. Remember how Christopher got furious in the novel and Lifetime film when Cathy kissed Bart? He acted like it was because she carelessly nearly blew their cover, but it was clearly actually because he felt she had cheated on him. Even in the original, where the incest between the two is only heavily implied but not outright stated (at least in the final cut) I still feel a legit romantic connection with the two. So to answer your question, while I respect your opinion, I personally felt their relationship, while demented, was sincere and legit.
I watched the first two Lifetime movies and WOW! They completely butchered the story. The Original left out a key scene for censorship reasons and they changed the ending because they never intended a sequel, but the Lifetime versions were ridiculous. The second one rewrote the story entirely. Total trash. I've read all 9 books and I still love the Original version.
@@vcandrewscritiquer; I am a fan of this series and of vc Andrews. My mom had her entire library catalogue in the house growing up and I read most of them, some were not appropriate at that age. But that's why I watched this 43 minute video, sadly was rather disappointed in the execution and quite frankly the poor attitude of the content creator not being able to handle a little criticism or a joke. But ok kid, I wish you luck and the skills to do better. Have a nice day.
![The Complete Story of Destiny! From origins to Shadowkeep [Timeline and Lore explained]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/9mbDXvDNqTU/mqdefault.jpg)
Also, are we going to ignore that the Lifetime version completely omitted Christopher's ambition to be a doctor (although he becomes a doctor in the sequel movies), which is not only a key part of his character but also helped their survival during their imprisonment.
His father wanted to be a doctor, too!
Did we watch the same movie? Christopher knew he wanted to be a doctor before the attic, and while they were in the attic, he is often buried in medical books. They didn't omit that.
@@darianrose2195 He never talks about it the Lifetime version and there are no scenes where he uses his medical knowledge.
I also wanted to add to Christopher’s traits. He takes his father’s word in becoming a doctor and his mother’s trait of being an artist. He has two talent traits.
Yea, after watching the original movie I was annoyed they took away his doctor knowledge in the lifetime remake. Overall I just prefer the original though
The 2014 version falters in many ways. Kiernen Shipka and Mason Dye had already hit puberty, so that part of the coming-of-age aspect didn't translate well. The 1987 movie actually made a smart move by making Cathy and Chris older, so they wouldn't have to portray that. The Lifetime version also tried to cram too many plot points into 90 minutes, which made the story very rushed and lessened the emotional impact. And don't even get me started on the cheap budget (CGI-looking mansion, small interiors that were obviously sets, etc). I can really only give Lifetime props for including more from the novel, but that doesn't make it better.
1987 has problems that were mostly due to studio interference, but VC Andrews approved the script, she met the actors and the crew. It will always be my favorite.
I agree with you. Love the 1987 version. The music for this movie made it creepy. So well made with out all the incest porno.
The old version of the movie lack of actor’s real age were casted and the emotions were brought in the film.
@@soph.studios21 The 1987 movie made Cathy and Chris older: Cathy is 14 and Chris is 16. Kristy Swanson was 16; Kiernana Shipka was 13. Mason Dye was 20 when he played Chris; Jeb Stuart Adams was 25. Not a huge difference. Kiernan Shipka and Mason Dye had obviously already hit puberty and there were no attempts made to disguise that fact (i.e. the birthday party at the beginning) which makes the coming-of-age aspect unconvincing. V.C. Andrews herself approved of the cast of the 1987 movie (most of which was shot in 1986).
The new version is really quite good and more soulful, man. I quite enjoyed reading it
Kristy loses my vote with “EAT THE COOKIE, MOTHER!” It’s as hysterically overacted as Faye Dunaway’s “NO WIRE HANGERS EVVEEERRR!”
In the Garden of Shadows book you find out that Christopher and Corrine are half siblings as well uncle and niece. And why Olivia (the grandma) is so sour and all
That was Neiderman twisting VC's vision. GOS was totally written by Neiderman.
@@katemaloney4296 Really? Interesting. Thanks for the info!
@@katemaloney4296I never knew when the switch happened, thank you!
Yeah, I don't believe anything in Garden of Shadows. At no other point in the series was it even hinted that Chris Sr and Corinne were actually half siblings. I always thought it was stupid to make them more closely related anyway - it didn't change anything.
Neiderman's writing is pretty obvious - especially in GoS and the last three books of the Heaven series. The contrast between his and VCA's style is not difficult to spot.
I think Corine is the closest to Chris because he is an exact copy of his father.
I think so too. Unfortunately, that didn't stop her from trying to kill him off with the rest of the kids to secure her inheritance.
Kristy Swanson had the look of Cathy down perfectly.
it's interesting i feel the original had more abuse from the grandmother and didn't show much of the incest story line, but the story with the new one showed more had more abuse from the mother and had showed more of the incest
39:44 Not only would Corrinne have to forfeit everything if it was ever discovered that she had children out of incest but also if she ever had any children with anyone else. Her father really wanted to drive extra nails into her
I honestly never understood what Malcolm's intent with that was. I get the clause was a safeguard so that she couldn't get away with lying about not having inbred kids, but why ban her from having kids in a moral way as well?
@@vcandrewscritiquer I think it was another form of punishment. He was basically telling her he wanted her to keep her legs shut since he considers his daughter an incestuous whore
@@vcandrewscritiquerspite, probably, or possibly a belief that she was forever tainted
Remember, Malcolm told Corrine that he would leave everything to her if she never married and stayed with him, and she replied that she wanted to get married and have babies. He decided to keep her in boarding schools and away from boys. Corrine betrayed him and broke his creepy heart like his mother did. So she had to pay.
Just a way to still have a creepy hold on her even after he's dead. His obsession with his daughter was just...ugh.
I think each movie is a good representation of the time they were made. The older movie has the characters hollow, heavy on the dramatics. The new movie makes the characters seem more authentic instead of focusing on drama.
I wouldn't' call the characters in the original hollow. Just not as developed as in the new.
The 2014 version is extremely rushed, so the emotional impact is missing.
Louise Fletcher as the Grandmother scared the absolute hell out of me as a kid. I even picture her when I read the book. I love Ellen Burstyn and she did good but Louise made Olivia a true monster. Stone cold and very intimidating.
The dad/Cathy scene in the old movie and tells her she's his favorite, is because she is very upset about the mom's new pregnancy and she's afraid he won't love her the same.
Almost exactly like the book.
I feel at least one reason the original was more brutal than the lifetime version was because of the times. The lifetime version was made during the era of movies/tv where media in general seemed hesitant to show too much violence, especially towards children, especially young children, so that alone softened some of the story's inherit darkness.
Yup, I agree.
Nice video! Please do more VC Andrews series! = Heaven, Audrina, Dawn, etc... They're all fun. :) also I had a hilarious memory while watching this: when I was about 6-7 I saw the first Flowers movie and also Golden Girls. Being a dumb lil boy I thought all old people looked the same, so I thought Rue the actress who plays Blanche on "Golden Girls" was the grandmother in "Flowers." I thought the VC Andrews kids were locked in Hollingsworth Manor and 'Flowers in the Attic' was somehow Blanche's backstory before she calmed down and moved to Florida to become more promiscuous... LOL
This is precious 😂
My mom had a full time job in the 70s. So did my dad. Neither had a college education. They learned on the job. This is why I get confused by the book, unless the mother just didn’t want to try and wanted to earn her family’s riches and was ok with the masochist way she would have to be with her parents.
The book and the remake takes place in the 50s. Back then, while it was possible for women to get a job, it was much harder compared to the 70s due to the pressure for women to be a housewife among other things. Women couldn't even own their own bank accounts at that time. That didn't come about till the 70s in the US. The plot seems a bit more believable given the context of when its set.
However, this plot doesn't make sense in the original movie. That took place during the late 80s, so the mother could've easily found a job and was just a gold digging diva. Though, that is true for the other versions of the mom, and I think what you said is a huge part of it as well.
Whoa, women couldn't even have freakin bank accounts until the 70s?! What about single women?
@@vcandrewscritiquer Probably had to live off of one of their parents.
Ugh, that's just terrible
@@sorcerersapprenticeThis just isn't true. Federal legislation protecting women from being discriminated against by banks was passed in the 60s and 70s. But there are records of American women with personal bank accounts going back to Colonial America. It was rare at that time, but it happened.
The girl who played Carrie in the 1987 one (Lindsay Parker) is the daughter of UFO drummer Andy Parker.
The fuck is up with the swipe at Britney Spears; “most self centered blonde since Britney Spears & Draco Malfoy” at the 16:41mark?
Your mad over a celebrity who doesn’t even know or care that you exist? Get a life for real like you look pathetic
Do you know of a more self centered blonde person?
@@vcandrewscritiquer Idk how about Margaret Thatcher, Anne Coulter, Elizabeth Holmes, or Kelly Conway? Women who’ve said & done far worse things than Spears ever has done. Wtf Britney Spears do to make you make such a harsh character judgement? You’re literally comparing her to an abusive parent character. When Britney has in fact been at the mercy of abusive parents, or have you been oblivious to the illegal conservatorship she was under for over a decade? Are you still living in 2007 when she was pop culture’s public punching bag? It’s 2024, we’ve collectively agreed that was misogynistic BS to do. She’s been through horrors I hope you’ll never have to endure. Shame on you.
@@vcandrewscritiquer how the hell is she self centered??? bc she was a victim of abuse and exploitation her whole life?
I...did not know that. To be honest, when I thought of "self centered blonde" she was just cognitively the first thing that came to mind, since I've heard of her...issues. Next time, I should probably check my facts
FITA needs to be a ten-part miniseries on tubi or Netflix.
I think ten would be a bit much. Maybe 3-4 episodes. Definitely more than one 90 min tv flick.
I find it interesting that in both versions Carrie and Cory are already kids at the start. In the book, Cathy finds out that her mom is pregnant and that's why she gets jealous, prompting her dad to give her the music box and ring.
I can see why both adaptations changed it. The pacing in the original book felt kind of off to start with Cathy as a seven year old just for one chapter and then jump right into being a teen. I think the story flows better starting them off with the age they are now, hence changing Cathy being worried that the twins will distract her father from her to his new VP job distracting from her in the Lifetime film.
Victoria Tennant was the original Aunt Lydia in the film version of The Handmaid's Tal e
Thanks for improving it. It's actually much better than the original
Your channel is literally called VC Andrews Critiquer. Are you ever gonna critique her other books?
Lifetime adaptations of V.C. Andrews books just make me want to cry. I like to think that HBO or Amazon would do a better job. I also wish that the family would hire a new ghost writer. The latest books are just a insult to Andrews.
I 100% agree with you.
Young man you did an excellent job on this movie comparison bravo 👏
I’ve read this book and every other until the orphans series when I was over it…… but to say any of them are my favorite book… no.. let me recommend “Their Eyes Were Watching God” by Zora Neal Hurston or “The Portrait of Julian Gray” by Oscar Wilde.
👏 👏 👏 😂
This was very entertaining 😂😂
Glad you enjoyed it! :)
Don’t forget, Kiernan Shipka was Sabrina in the Netflix series, the chilling adventures of Sabrina
Yup, I mentioned that in the review :)
@@vcandrewscritiquer sorry I’m hearing impaired and I might’ve missed it
Yes!
I didn’t know about the 1987 movie, but after watching the 2014 movie I read the books. I probably won't go watch the 1987 version because it seems like the 2014 followed the books better.
I honestly still think it's worth a watch. It's not as faithful to the book, but it's honestly just as crazy
Garden of Shadows was drafted and planned by VC Andrews so it would still be cannon bc it’s what she intended for the series. How does someone claiming to be a critic of her work not know that? Might wanna consider changing your name on here
Andrew Neiderman (the ghostwriter) has confirmed that he never saw any of VCA's unfinished manuscripts when he finished the Dollanganger series and the Casteel series. VCA did sign contracts to write the Dollanganger prequel and the third Casteel novel about a month before her death, and her family did find an unfinished manuscript for the next Casteel book, none of which was used.
@@Muirmaiden you got a source for that? Everything I can find online says he used her notes/drafts
@@triciacarey2288 It was confirmed in The Woman Beyond The Attic. It was just a publicity move when it was claimed that she left behind drafts and outlines for upcoming books. She was planning to write the FITA prequel as she had signed a contract to do it, but she died before she could write it.
That should be a movie, with the recent "Origin Story" link!
@@triciacarey2288Everyone knows Neiderman wrote his own version of GOS.
It should start with Garden of Shadows.
Hi i liked the newer version better ,it seemed to stick to the book more and really told the full story and were more scenes from the book in it so liked the newer one better ,just an opinion ,
Sonic Galaxy?
I like VC Andrews
A lot of people do :)
I saw the film before reading the book. After reading book I saw the film again.
The book is always better than the film
Virginia Andrews wrote about family
tragedies I read 2 other novels,
Petals On The Wind is a sequel of to Flowers In The Attic
There were actually two more. The third was If There Be Thorns and the fourth, Seeds of Yesterday. If I recall right the fourth was a prequel to the whole series... Corrine's story.
Christopher Sr. 36th Birthday.
Yup, that's the birthday he got in the car wreck that took his life
@@vcandrewscritiquer Painful to think about!
The latest versions of so-called books by VC Andrews try to ruin the entire flowers in the attic storyline
My biggest issue is revealing that Olivia wasn't Corrine's birth mother. I felt it completely ruined the whole irony of how Corrine had become an evil more cruel birth mom to her kids than her own was.
@@vcandrewscritiquerWhere are the critiques of these? :)
All great thrillers need a great villain. And the 80's Flowers in the Attic has two of them: Victoria Tennant and Louise Fletcher. Heather Graham looks like a spoiled teenager (not the mother of 4 children), and Ellen Burstyn is too old and feeble to be scary. I give the win to the original.
you have to he joking with the Ellen burstyn part at least
Ur voice hasn’t changed much
Well, at least it doesn't make ears bleed till there's complete blood loss anymore
I know this is a lighthearted video and not like a text analysis of the series! But you had referred to chris as the male love interest and i was just wondering if that was facetious or not! Its my first time watching your channel and i like it but dont know your writing style yet! Just wondering if you did actually view the series as romance or as chris as a love interest because i never got that from the book or the sequel. Like to me it often felt like he was way more into cathy than she was him and the whole point is generational trauma and falling in the footsteps of your parents yk? To where it never read as romance to me but rather like a slow burn thriller or tragedy. Like chris is inevitably the partner she is with but its dysfunctional and tragic and portrayed as such. For example I would say Oliver in call me by your name is the love interest bc despite it being a bittersweet and dysfunctional relationship it is still a romance it is framed as a romance, or i’d say Mr Darcy is the love interest, but i wouldn’t say Wendy Torrance is a romantic lead despite being like the wife of the main character you know? Or Dolores Hayes is not the love interest because the story isnt a romance in reality, its only a romance on paper in Humbert Humbert’s twisted mind but its clear through subtext that Dolores was meant to be seen as a victim. Maybe i am being nit picky but to me theres a different between love interest in a romance story and a romantic partner/object of affection in a Story thats not to be read as a romance. if that makes sense :) Just wanted to know your thoughts on the series as a whole as a fellow lover of the story:)
I personally felt their relationship, as immoral and perverted as it was, did feel legit and not just lustful. As the story progressed, I felt Cathy and Christopher were transitioning from just a brother and sister to an actual married couple meant to fill the roles of their parents, with their dad being deceased and their mom too busy living the high life to be there for them in their time of need. Remember how Christopher got furious in the novel and Lifetime film when Cathy kissed Bart? He acted like it was because she carelessly nearly blew their cover, but it was clearly actually because he felt she had cheated on him. Even in the original, where the incest between the two is only heavily implied but not outright stated (at least in the final cut) I still feel a legit romantic connection with the two. So to answer your question, while I respect your opinion, I personally felt their relationship, while demented, was sincere and legit.
@@vcandrewscritiquer i respect your opinion too! Many different ways to interpret the book and it is nice to hear other people’s analysis on the text!
V.c Andrew's was a gr8 author. I have watched both of the movies I must say the 1st movie was much much better then the re-boot.
I personally preferred the ORGINAL version. It was a hell of a lot more scarier. The newer version. Not so much
I watched the first two Lifetime movies and WOW! They completely butchered the story. The Original left out a key scene for censorship reasons and they changed the ending because they never intended a sequel, but the Lifetime versions were ridiculous. The second one rewrote the story entirely. Total trash. I've read all 9 books and I still love the Original version.
Lifetime Cory got on my nerves.
I didn't mind him too much. I just felt he was kind of bland compared to the Corey in the original.
Dude, just say you don’t like ‘old’ movies and go. No need for a 43 minute video.
Wouldn't have made for a very interesting video if I'd done that though, now would it?
He has lots of old characters he likes better
@@vcandrewscritiquer; so you consider this interesting?
Yes, I do. If you're not a fan of the Dollaganger series, watch another video.
@@vcandrewscritiquer; I am a fan of this series and of vc Andrews. My mom had her entire library catalogue in the house growing up and I read most of them, some were not appropriate at that age. But that's why I watched this 43 minute video, sadly was rather disappointed in the execution and quite frankly the poor attitude of the content creator not being able to handle a little criticism or a joke.
But ok kid, I wish you luck and the skills to do better. Have a nice day.