Anastasia: Once Upon a Time

[GDSophie]

Emily Carey, who portrays the young Diana in “Wonder Woman,”  has been set to star in the upcoming live-action family comedy, “Anastasia: Once Upon a Time.”

Carey will play the role of the young Anastasia. Set in 1917, “Anastasia” is a re-telling of the classic story in which Anastasia Romanov escapes through a portal when her family is being threatened by Vladimir Lenin and finds herself in the year 1988, befriended by a young American girl.

Producers on “Anastasia: Once Upon a Time” are Armando Gutierrez, Eli Lipnik, Peter Lees and Bret Jones. Blake Harris will direct from his screenplay.  The original concept for the story came from Gutierrez and Harris.

And here we see Anastasia thrust into a typical story of time travel; I bet you it won't even be about her at all, they're just putting her in for the profit. I won't be surprised if they get so many things wrong. At least Emily Carey is close to Anastasia's age, although she is 14 while Anastasia was 16 in 1917. One thing they've already got wrong.

[TimM]

Nothing says "family comedy" like an innocent family being brutally gunned down.

Carey will play the role of the young Anastasia. Set in 1917, “Anastasia” is a re-telling of the classic story in which Anastasia Romanov escapes through a portal when her family is being threatened by Vladimir Lenin and finds herself in the year 1988, befriended by a young American girl.

It sounds to me that they could have just made up a character and told the same story.  Why use Anastasia?

Why 1988?  Why not set the modern day sequences in the present time?  The only reason I can think of for the 1988 setting is that they want to avoid the Internet, cell phones, and other such things.  As to why, I have no idea.

[GDSophie]

Anastasia in this movie is from 1917 so even though the murder be mentioned in the movie-lacking her because she's in 1988-she has no idea what has happened to her family. And it would have been easier to put her in the 21st century, it would be amusing to see a girl from the 1900s trying to work the technology from today.

[TimM]

As I said, they could have made up a character and told this exact same story, a girl from the past trying to cope with our modern world and the comedy that would result from it.

The problem I have is that they are going to use Anastasia.  And that means the movie has a foregone conclusion, namely Anastasia will be sent back to die with her family.   And there was definitely nothing funny about that.   

I would have the same issue if they used Anne Frank for this premise.

If they want to make a family comedy about a girl from the past trying to cope with the world of the 21st Century, fine, but make up a character.  Don't use a historical person who died at a tragically young age, like Anastasia and Anne Frank did.

[GDSophie]

Especially since the whole premise is getting her back to 1917. I will literally despise the movie if it doesn't touch upon their murder and act like it's okay to send her back to Imperial Russia knowing she will be in front of a firing squad the year later.

[TimM]

This whole thing is in very poor taste, IMO.

[edubs31]

I was thinking that the original story/script was composed in 1988 which might explain why they're using that year. Or because it's prior to the dissolution of the Soviet Union.

Otherwise the only thing that would make sense to me was if they chose to show an elderly Anastasia not long before her death. She would have been 87 in 1988.

[GDSophie]

I was thinking that the original story/script was composed in 1988 which might explain why they're using that year. Or because it's prior to the dissolution of the Soviet Union.

Otherwise the only thing that would make sense to me was if they chose to show an elderly Anastasia not long before her death. She would have been 87 in 1988.

Nope, they're just setting it in the 1988 and 1917 Anastasia steps into a portal that spits her out in 1988's America.

[TimM]

I was thinking that the original story/script was composed in 1988 which might explain why they're using that year. Or because it's prior to the dissolution of the Soviet Union.

That might be it.  Remember, this would also predate the discovery of the skeletal remains of the I.F. (which happened in 1991). Setting the story in 1988 means they sidestep the whole issue.

Also, in 1988, there was still the question of whether Anastasia escape or not.  Of course, we know that didn't happen, but someone in 1988 wouldn't. 

[edubs31]

I was thinking that the original story/script was composed in 1988 which might explain why they're using that year. Or because it's prior to the dissolution of the Soviet Union.

Otherwise the only thing that would make sense to me was if they chose to show an elderly Anastasia not long before her death. She would have been 87 in 1988.

Nope, they're just setting it in the 1988 and 1917 Anastasia steps into a portal that spits her out in 1988's America.

Very strange then.

Not sure what's worse...1917/18 Russia or 1980s America :-)

[GDSophie]

There's also the problem with the American girl who finds Anastasia and helps her; if she finds out about the murders will she tell Anastasia? Will the writers try and be sensitive or insensitive with the issue of the entire family being executed in such a way?

[TimM]

There's also the problem with the American girl who finds Anastasia and helps her; if she finds out about the murders will she tell Anastasia? Will the writers try and be sensitive or insensitive with the issue of the entire family being executed in such a way?

As I said, that might be why they chose to set this in 1988, before it was truly confirmed that the family had all been murdered (in 1991 and 2007).  It was assumed that is what happened, but, at that point, there were still no bodies that could be DNA tested to say "Yes, they all died on July 17th, 1918.  No survivors, period."

So it's most likely that this American girl would have no way of confirming that the murders had happened, she'll have to wait another three years.

However, I still have to wonder just who thought that this would be a good idea.   A family comedy centering on a young girl who is destined to be brutally murdered!? 

Once again, they could have made up a fictional character from the past and told the same story.   Why didn't they do that? 

[LisaDavidson]

The Producers can just appropriate her name with no cost to themselves to sell more movie tickets. It's about as crass as it comes.

[GDSophie]

The film will be renamed Anastasia, like that won't cause any confusion at all, and one of the writers is an actual Anastasia Romanoff (with the French spelling)!

Alexei is the only known Romanov other than Anastasia to be appearing in the film, he will be played by a female actress for some unknown reason.

This film keeps on getting worse and worse, and it hasn't even been released yet!

I won't be surprised if all the reviews are negative, it's turning out to be a horrible film!

'Yay let's make a movie about a child being sent back to her time to be gunned down a year later!' if it was about Anne Frank, like Tim said, everyone would lose their minds and the film would be cancelled.

[GDSophie]

More information!

It has been changed to a permanent fantasy-adventure film, and they added an enchantress named Yara who is most likely the reason she is even in 1988 in the first place.

Alexei's actor has been changed from female to a male, so there's that.

Tatiana has not been cast from what I've seen, but Alexandra, Olga and Maria are in the movie. The actress playing Maria is virtually unknown so I have no idea how old she is, but Olga is being played by a 15 year old which doesn't make sense as she was 21 in 1917.

And if it doesn't get even more horrible a character called Yakov has been mentioned. It better not be who I think it is.

It's rumored to be a reboot of the 1997 animated movie but even that wasn't as insensitive as this.