Greta Gerwig‘s decision to direct a period-piece adaptation of Louisa May Alcott‘s Little Women strikes me as less than fully exciting, mainly because it seems as if too many others have gone down this path.

There was a recent TV adaptation of Little Women — a poorly-reviewed miniseries that debuted last month on PBS, having begun on the BBC last December. A faithful historical costumer, set in Massachusetts and New York between 1868 and 1871.

There’s also a forthcoming present-day indie version with Lea Thompson, opening in late September.

Add to these the Gillian Armstrong, Mervyn LeRoy and George Cukor versions (released in ’94, ’49 and ’33 respectively) and you have a total of five Little Women adaptations.

Gerwig’s version, reportedly to he produced by Sony/Columbia and costarring Emma Stone, Meryl Streep, Saoirse Ronan, Florence Pugh and Timothee Chalamet, will be the third recent effort and the sixth overall.

I’d be lying if I said the Gerwig project didn’t deflate me to some extent. A recent draft of her script, dated May 2018, is pure Alcott and pure period.

On one hand I’m presuming that the Lady Bird helmer, at the peak of her powers right now, will do well with the material. Her Little Women will naturally get much more attention and will easily dominate the other three in terms of likely critical respect, theatrical bookings, promotional backing, etc.

Early yesterday I had been given bad info that her version would be contemporary and set in Sacramento a la Lady Bird — another ensemble, a less singular story, broader scope. I liked that concept but it was quickly debunked.

A producer friend said this morning, “Why is Greta making a third version of Little Women on top of the other two?” A couple of HE commenters said the same thing.