Discussion
Another Christie hatchet job from Phelps; bared very little relation to the book; characters missing, confusing ending, etc Two hours of my life I won't get back.
Even the ITV version, which wasn't a faithful adaptation (and shoe horned Miss Marple in) at least followed most of the story, and made sense.
Even the ITV version, which wasn't a faithful adaptation (and shoe horned Miss Marple in) at least followed most of the story, and made sense.
singlecoil said:
The use of an archetypal Cotswold village as a location for a fictional village in Sussex was a bit daft. Stopped watching shortly after that anyway.
Filmed in Bisley (the Gloucestershire one).Pub became schizophrenic for the duration - one side signage remained the Bear, the other from which they filmed the Pale Horse!
The Mad Monk said:
BTW. Anyone care to explain it to me?
To - partially - answer my own question.The Telegraph reviewer had a bit of trouble with it.
"So the murderer turned out to be the jealous husband, in the bathroom, with the radio. Well, one of the murderers. The Pale Horse (BBC One) ended with several plots being wrapped up at once, to the point where I had to watch it twice just to understand everything, and still I wasn’t sure. Maybe it was the end of a long week and my brain wasn’t in gear, or maybe writer Sarah Phelps was chucking the rat-filled kitchen sink into this rewrite of Agatha Christie".
ArnageWRC said:
Another Christie hatchet job from Phelps; bared very little relation to the book; characters missing, confusing ending, etc Two hours of my life I won't get back.
Even the ITV version, which wasn't a faithful adaptation (and shoe horned Miss Marple in) at least followed most of the story, and made sense.
Why is that a problem? I don't want to see the same thing over and over and over again. West Side Story was magic but, correct me if I'm wrong, it didn't follow Shakespeare very faithfully. Clueless was the best Emma of the lot. Shame it was American, but you can't have everything. Not forgetting Bridget Jones' Diary of course. Not a film I can say I liked because I haven't seen it, but my wife rated it.Even the ITV version, which wasn't a faithful adaptation (and shoe horned Miss Marple in) at least followed most of the story, and made sense.
Derek Smith said:
Why is that a problem? I don't want to see the same thing over and over and over again. West Side Story was magic but, correct me if I'm wrong, it didn't follow Shakespeare very faithfully. Clueless was the best Emma of the lot. Shame it was American, but you can't have everything. Not forgetting Bridget Jones' Diary of course. Not a film I can say I liked because I haven't seen it, but my wife rated it.
Your examples are interesting, as they actually changed the title so it appeared to be something different, but based on original story. That's fine, however, here they've kept the original title, and character names, but changed most of everything else. Call it something else, change the character names, etcArnageWRC said:
Your examples are interesting, as they actually changed the title so it appeared to be something different, but based on original story. That's fine, however, here they've kept the original title, and character names, but changed most of everything else. Call it something else, change the character names, etc
There were two versions of Persuasion on TV within about 6 months of each other and opinion seemed shared between them as which was best. I thought they were both fine, but both varied from the book by some distance. Then there was the BBC adaptation of Pride and Prejudice from the 90s. This was regarded then, and by many since, as one of the best adaptations of an Austin novel. There's been a film since, with a different take on it. Historically the film might well have been more accurate, apart from the Americans in it of course, but lacked the depth of the BBC, 6 hour long, series, as one would expect. They told slightly different stories.I think we've got to accept that all adaptations of books are merely 'based on'. There can be no faithful representation. Even plays vary a great deal. There are any number of Shakespeare productions that vary significantly. I reckon that's got to be for good. The title gives a pointer.
I think Clueless was not called Emma because it might have confused the Americans. I thought it brilliant.
Dune was a disappointment for many as it was hardly faithful, perhaps not similar in many ways, to the book, but it was a good film and has stood the test of time. There is an Australian series, quite extensive, that sticks closer to the book, and it's great, but few took to it over here. Shame, as I enjoyed it.
I understand what you say, but I am a more the merrier type of viewer. I'll give any adaptation a go. I will certainly agree that some are rubbish, merely pot-boilers. Every now and again, one is inspired.
Hmm more style over substance for me. I heard something on the radio about Agatha Christie making such tight storylines that there were never any plot holes in her books.
So i was disappointed to find some in this adaptation - why change it and have it make no sense? Unless i just misunderstood...
How did Osbourne's name get on Jessie's list?
How did Jessie report names and visitors back to Osbourne, when she was only there occasionally?
How did osbourne get paid if clients paid the witches. Alternatively how did the witches get paid if clients paid Osbourne?
How did Osbourne know Mark wanted his wife and the police guy dead?
So i was disappointed to find some in this adaptation - why change it and have it make no sense? Unless i just misunderstood...
How did Osbourne's name get on Jessie's list?
How did Jessie report names and visitors back to Osbourne, when she was only there occasionally?
How did osbourne get paid if clients paid the witches. Alternatively how did the witches get paid if clients paid Osbourne?
How did Osbourne know Mark wanted his wife and the police guy dead?
Gassing Station | TV, Film, Video Streaming & Radio | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff