I don't recall them ever mentioning it. Just skipped over all that. Are we to think her and Sinjin (I refuse to use that ridiculous spelling of his name however correct it may be) are unrelated in this adaptation or that they are but they happened to not mention it.
shareThey've left out that detail in other adaptations too. It's a long novel to fit into 2 hours so things have to be cut. It's not like that detail really affects the ending.
But unfortunately for me, I believe THAT point is important and to leave it out detracts from the story. It doesn't make a version "horrible" but makes it less of an indepth/involved story and less interesting to me. That she should happen on a house on the moors that happens to be the home of her long lost relatives fills out the story better than just "leaving it" out and making them just some strangers that help her. Of course, I think RPJ played a "much too nice" St John. Maybe it's my vision of him as Cpt Wentworth (yes two Cpt Wentworths in this version) that holds me back. I tend to try to find good points in all version so I can watch a variety rather than focussing on one or a few versions. I even enjoy the 1934 version for its comic relief.
my god its full of stars
They've left out that detail in other adaptations too. It's a long novel to fit into 2 hours so things have to be cut. It's not like that detail really affects the ending.