Bravo, ITV.
Well, our third television channel has pulled it off again.
Their appalling...nay, horrific adaptation of the novels of Agatha Christie are again making me shout at the TV until my throat hurts.
'Marple'. Not Miss Marple, just Marple.
It raises the question with me - how much can you adapt a book before it really stops counting as an adaptation?
The last one I saw (The Body in The Library) was awful. They had the semblance of the same plot, but changed characters, situations and so forth and, presumably to make it more 'modern', changed a relationship (and hence who was actually guilty) from a straight relationship to a lesbian one.
And before you say anything: I watch them in the hope they'll be good this time.
This one (Sleeping Murder) was even worse. There was a character who was fairly prominent throughout who they'd just made up. The relationships between the other characters had changed. The ending had changed. The personalities of the characters had changed. They missed out important points in the plot in order to focus on romantic relationships between people. One of the few things that remained was that the killer was still the same person.
Phew. Ok, I'm getting worked up again.
Calm, calm, calm.
Shhhhhhhhhhhhh...
What are the programmes that make you shout at the TV?
And if you don't watch TV, what are the films or books that make you annoyed?
posted by Hieronymous Anonymous @ 2:12 pm
9 comments
9 Comments:
You have my full empathy on this one honey. If movie- or TV makers rape a plot, certainly such good plots as Dame Agatah Christie's, they deserve a public execution. It's one of the things that get's me very annoyed too.
I am affraid the books that annoy me will mean little to you, as they are Dutch authors. Ronald Giphart, who seems to think good writing is the same as flooding you with a diarhea of abusive words and the words "cunt" and "fuck" in every third sentence. And Harry Mulisch ("The Discovery of Heaven") who seems to think he is God himself, and is revered as such bby his fans.
Ooh...I remember attempting to watch The Body in The Library a while back. It was so thrilling that I fell asleep half an hour in, only to wake up just in time for the credits.
But yes, I usually hate it when books are converted to tv shows/movies. Eg, The Lion, The Witch and The Wardrobe was an excellent movie, but they changed things around to make it more dramatic, and missed some of the fun stuff out. It just wasn't the same as what I had envisioned in my head.
Since I don't watch television, I unfortunately have to miss out on all these wonderful made-for-television movies (o lament, o sorrow).
As for movies, well, I go into any book-based movie already certain that they'll have changed the story, so I usually just pretend that it's not even based on the book and that it's something completely new. That way I'm not usually too disappointed in that regards, even though often enough the movie is disappointing in and of itself.
Of course, there are also the books that are based on movies, but I don't think I've ever read any of those so I don't know what they're like.
And your blog is acting rather strange at the moment, so I don't know if it will let me post all this. I suppose I'll find out right now.
Hmm. . .it let me post, but it made me anonymous. How interesting. I can be the nameless voice, tormenting and confusing Boo from the shadows of anonymity and ambiguity. . .heh heh heh. . .
Boo, I too sypathise.
It's usually the small things that irk me the most. Like in the Harry Potter movies they couldn't even give Daniel Radcliff contacts so his eyes were green. Instead they're blue. Besides the scar, that's the main descriptipn given in regards to Harry.
Also, in the amine adaptation of Howls Moving Castle, Sophie has blond hair when she's supposed to have red hair. It's an animation for christs sake! How hard is it to make the character look the way they're described! Also, the whole 'moving castle' bit was done completely wrong. It doesn't have legs, Calcifer moves it by magic so it sort of glides along, not stomps across the countryside like an out-of-control robot!
Ok, now I'm getting worked up, so I'll leave it at that for now.
Stephen King and his obsession with booger. Ever since I stumbled on this,I have not failed to come across it at least once in his books. I have not bothered to go back to the earlier King books I read to verify the frequency, but I am pretty sure that it appears in ALL his books, at least once.
A movie should never follow the path a book takes word for word
The main reason for this is it's a totally different art form and the man/woman making said movie has to think of his/her future.
They have to prove that they can make the movie there own, If Fred Bloggs and John Smith both make movies based word for word on a the same book, they will probably come up with the same movie
and there's no future in the movie industry for people who can't create.
Hence people will tear stories apart until they are no longer reconisable and then make the movies
I-robot jumps to mind, based on the story by Isaac Asimov
in exactly the same way as The star wars trilogy is based on the books of Douglas Adams, i.e they're both set in space.
Saying all that I love having a go at adverts. The adverts over here are very slap dash, it's very easy to reverse what they're trying to say.
Nettie, with Harry Potter, Daniel Radcliffe actually found the contacts uncomfortable to wear. I think in the first movie he does actually wear them for a bit, so for parts of the movie he does have green eyes, and others he had his natural blue.
How can you tell what color his eyes are? I can't make it past those hulking eyebrows. The boy needs a trim.
Post a Comment
<< Home