Have Your Say

Discuss Marple

Talk about everything Marple related here!

Future 'Marple' Adapts?

hobbit 24 Jan 09 at 8:59 a.m. GMT

As it seems we're going to be lumbered with the silly formula of 2 Marple books, 2 non-Marple books (I can't believe they're actually just calling her 'Marple', I mean how disrespectful) per series, I was wondering what people thought would be another good non-Marple to be adapted?

I know we've had discussions like this in the past, but I thought now might be the time to re-start one. For me, I'd rather like to see a version of Sparkling Cyanide, or maybe another Tommy and Tuppence novel. What are your views?

Login or register to add posts and reply

72 replies

Reverse order

Tommy_A_Jones 22 Oct 09 at 3:25 p.m. GMT

All I am saying is removing Poiurot and Bouc and replaceing them with Miss Marple and Dolly is by Far Much better than putting Miss Marple in some of the Books which have never been Adapted on Television or Film but Ultimately Poirot belongs in the Adaspts he should be in and same for Miss Marple ALTHOUGH;

A) I Enjoyed the MR Films and I think SOME Non-Series Books are not to my taste like; The Crooked House, Endless Night and Sparkling Cyanide and if ITV, Chorion, etc put her in those three they would be much improved.

go_leafs_nation 21 Oct 09 at 4:56 p.m. GMT

a) Not if she wasn't in the car (a "with Dolly" scenario

b) Remove Dolly, and it can happen, but MM has no reason to be near Istanbul.

I'm throughly against replacing Poirot. He belongs in his novels; let them stay as is. That's my final word on the matter.

Tommy_A_Jones 21 Oct 09 at 3:33 p.m. GMT

I had forgotten that but couldn't they be paraded in fromnt of Miss Marple just as well

go_leafs_nation 20 Oct 09 at 9:06 p.m. GMT

You forget that Poirot's presence in the car was vital, as clues were quite literally paraded in front of him very deliberately.

Tommy_A_Jones 20 Oct 09 at 4:52 p.m. GMT

I had forgotten that bit go_leafs but having said that there is no reason at all why the Train couldn't have more space and surely aren't there more than one Car on a Train so the Doctor and Bouc could stay in another, the train would have to stop because of the Snow anyway and Bouc and the Doctor could join the others then, If they are helping Poirot they wouldn't be sleeping anyway would they?

go_leafs_nation 20 Oct 09 at 4:40 p.m. GMT

But Bouc WASN'T IN THE CAR in the novel. Remember? He gave Poirot his compartment and went to another car, which was only occupied by the Greek doctor. Bundle and Bill wouldn't seperate like that. MM wouldn't let Dolly do that; they'd both agree to go to another car. Besides, Bundle and Bill don't belong anywhere near Murder on the Orient Express. They can stay in their little realm of light-hearted thrillers.

Tommy_A_Jones 20 Oct 09 at 1:08 p.m. GMT

go_leafs, I am not proposing eliminating any character I am just proposing a mild change, in a remake the Train wouldn't have to be full, but if eliminating a Character had to happen surely the only one who could be eliminated is Bouc, as he was the link between Poirot and the train Compony that role could be traken by Dolly if she was a Director and if the Train wasn't full there might be just enough room for Bunfle and Bill, Bill cou;d be a representative of the firm keeping an eye on the train which again would mean eliminating Bouc.

go_leafs_nation 19 Oct 09 at 5:11 p.m. GMT

But there was only one empty compartment, with one bed. MM wouldn't let Dolly give up her cabin for her; they'd probably both just go to another car. Are you suggesting suspects be eliminated? Well, there goes a vital clue (the Molina version butchered this up too)! As for Bundle and Bill-- just no. They don't belong anywhere within a thousand miles of Murder on the Orient Express. They may stay in The Seven Dials Mystery.

Tommy_A_Jones 19 Oct 09 at 1:11 p.m. GMT

go_leafs, I was going to say that over night I had come to your way of thinking BUT thinking about it more obviously adding MM and Dolly would mean slight changes and there is no reason thaty one change could be that the Train has just 2 spaces left, surely if it was stated that MM and Dolly weee expected that would mean adding them would be fine after all there is no reason that the Guilty party should know that they were boarding the train is there? Another change could be is Bundle and Bill could replace Poirot as a n Aniversary present maybe. 

go_leafs_nation 18 Oct 09 at 6:24 p.m. GMT

Look, Tommy, there's nothing to disagree with. It's physically impossible to cram in MM and Dolly together in the same car as the other passengers while keeping the mystery. You have no argument.

Tommy_A_Jones 18 Oct 09 at 5:01 p.m. GMT

I totally dissagree with you about MOTOE but Mainly about your description of the non series books, yes some I didn't like Passenger to Frankfurt, Sparkling Cyanide, Endless Night and Murder Is Easy but some like The Man In The Brown Suit, Why Didn't They Ask Evans, The Seven Dials Mystery and The Secret of Chimneys were excellent.

go_leafs_nation 18 Oct 09 at 2:30 p.m. GMT

Look at it this way: why have two adaptations of the same novel, one completely butchered and (depending on the Poirot in mind) the other either dreadful or good? Producers wouldn't back it. I was rather bored with all the references to "my nephew Raymond" to explain MM's presence somewhere, without ever seeing Raymond (except in Nemesis, where he was a dreadful womaniser and I hated him).

As for MOTOE: Miss Marple wouldn't fit! Physically, she would be unable to fit in with the passengers along with Dolly. If you remove Dolly, she has no reason to be anywhere NEAR Istanbul! The cabins were simply booked. Hang the director of the company and her friend! The passengers paid money for their compartments well in advance! They can go to a different car! But then, there goes the mystery.

So, once again, MM should stay away from Poirots. I have no problem with seeing her in non-series books, or even with T&T as they always were rather stupid. But a series detective (like HP) should never be replaced by another, unless it is done by the author of the original work. I don't see Agatha Christie's name credited as the screenwriter.

"Mille fois non, non, non!" is French for "A thousand times no, no, no!". That exclamation still stands.

Tommy_A_Jones 18 Oct 09 at 1:03 p.m. GMT

Withg regards to Murder On The Orient Express I agree Creative License would have to be made, but I am sure room would be made for a Director of the Company and a Friend, with regards to "Dear Raymond" shuffling MM of on holiday, the repition wouldn't be that bad to take after all she had the Calthorpe's she stayed with and Bunch appeared alot and as for Margaret Rutherford in ATF not being too great well I am afraid go_leafs that is your opinion, I liked the films she did as MM and I repeat putting MM in Poirot's we have already seen is much better by far than putting MM in books which have not been adapted for the screen Properly but like you with MR ala ATF that is my opinion, btw when you put French can you please translate iot as I don't speek it thanks Awfully Old Boy.

go_leafs_nation 17 Oct 09 at 5:49 p.m. GMT

The problem, like I said, is that if you allow them to replace the detective, this will give them a self-declared license to destroy the novel. Those happen to be three of Poirot's best cases, where he fits perfectly, and where MM won't fit. Introduce MM, and you're guaranteed a liberal plotline. It's Marple; it's practically guaranteed. Very few changes have to be made, but they will be made either way. So keep away from Poirot books, Marple & Co.!

Why would MM be in Istanbul? She couldn't travel with Dolly because HP had trouble fitting in the train by himself (unless you're proposing a stunt similar to Molina's MOTOE, which we all agree was dreadful). As for the other two, mille fois non, non, non! We've already had "dear" Raymond shuffle Miss Marple around earlier in the series... And I'm quite opposed to another MM adaptation of ATF- Margaret Rutherford tried her hand at that, and it wasn't too great.

Tommy_A_Jones 17 Oct 09 at 4:07 p.m. GMT

Bundle and go_leafs PLEASE PLEASE FORGIVE ME, I didn't mean to sound rude and have a re-think I was hoping to get back on and take the rude bit away before you posted anymore, please accept my apologies but go_leafs I think it is possible to replace Poirot with MM without changeing a great deal like this;

Murder On The rient Express

In the book Bouc is a Director of the Train Company, surely there are more, perhaps Col Bantry was one and on his death his Shares are inherited by Dolly along with his position and she has a free trip with MM

After The Funeral

Perhaps MM could be an Executor of The Will

Evil Under The Sun

perhaps Raymond could pay for a Holiday for MM and she goes with Bunch or Dolly or Cherry, that would mean very few changes would have to be made.

go_leafs_nation 17 Oct 09 at 2:26 p.m. GMT

Tommy, if you give the writers leeway enough to replace Poirot with MM, you might as well expect a completely altered plot which either makes no sense or is silly. "Because," the producers will smile, "you can see the Suchet version for a faithful one."

Bundle_ 17 Oct 09 at 1:54 p.m. GMT

Tommy, mon ami, you misunderstood me I'm afraid. My post was directed to go leafs not you. And even then I was just joking. If you refer to it again I put a happy face after my post: :0) . I didn't really mean that go leafs was giving anyone any bad ideas.

In fact I see what you are saying Tommy about it being better to put MM in Poirot adapts rather than the non series ones as it would make more sense. But at the same time I see what go leafs is saying too. In short, you both make vaild points.

Tommy_A_Jones 17 Oct 09 at 1:16 p.m. GMT

I don't understand your last post go_leafs, Firstly, I credit the Public with more in telligence than you seem to be willing to do, Secondly, I didn't understand about about The Sapphire of mon Ra and Thirdly there is no need to have Jazz Singers, Homosexuals etc, all I am suggesting is replace Poirot with Miss Marple, I am not trying to give the writers Ideas Bundle all I am trying to say (Is that putting MM in Poirot stories which we have already seen DS do is FAR! FAR! FAR! better than putting her in Adaptations of books we have Never seen done before, I don't weish to be rude but perhaps you and go_leafs should take the trouble to rezad my posts properly.  

Bundle_ 17 Oct 09 at 12:24 a.m. GMT

That mock scenario of Evil Under the Sun was too reminiscent to something the producers and screenwriters (etc) would actually be interested in doing for the Marple series. Please don't give them any ideas go leafs! :0)

go_leafs_nation 16 Oct 09 at 9:45 p.m. GMT

I still disagree, because of the "dunce" scenario I mentioned, but also because it would be confusing. Imagine the following: you open your TV Guide, and wow! Evil Under the Sun is on that night! Naturally, you see it. But wasn't it a Poirot? Why is Julia Mackenzie in it? And what on earth is the Sapphire of Amon-Ra doing in the movie? I don't remember anything about the drunk homosexual son-in-law of the American jazz singer... And... why did they move the setting to Bertram's Hotel?

See what I mean?

Tommy_A_Jones 16 Oct 09 at 5:13 p.m. GMT

I didn't say Poirot didn't fit into those books, all I said was that MM could and putting MM in poirot's that DS has done is Far BETTER than putting her in books that haven't been shown PROPERLY and now thanks to ITV, Chorion and others PROBABLY NEVER WILL NOW!

go_leafs_nation 16 Oct 09 at 5:03 p.m. GMT

MM would fit into Endless Night with no major difficulties, I'd say. She solved an almost identical case, anyhow; EN is merely an expansion of that MM short story, and a very poor expansion at that. It's just a very dull books, with characters that should be complex but instead are dull.

Tommy_A_Jones

I can think of afew ACs where Miss Marple could fit in quite nicely;

After The Funeral, Murder On The Orient Express, Endless Night, Sparkling Cyanide and Evil Under The Sun but that is just my opinion, I don't like Endless Night and Sparkling Cyanide as you know but I like the others.

No way... Poirot fits into all three of those books perfectly. Either way, MM and HP should never meet: one of them has to solve the case, and the other one will look like a dunce. If anything, the remaining books MM might fit into are Endless Night, Sparkling Cyanide, and Crooked House. The ones that the producers have been left with will never work with MM.

Tommy_A_Jones 16 Oct 09 at 3:41 p.m. GMT

You are right Puffinjill somebody on the site (I think it was go_leafs) pointed out that she was really cross at the MR films where MM tackles 2 of Poirot's cases but agreed to them because she hgad financial proiblems.

I am not advocating MM being put into non-MM books but I think if they have already been done properly it isn't as bad as her being put into Books that haven't ever been done as ITV and Chorion have scuppered the chance of them being done in the foreseweable future which is a crying shame,

To Bundle, I could see MM being in Endless Night, although changes would have to be made for instance at the Baginning there is an old woman, that could be MM and she could turn up and be a proffiseer (I think that is the word) and solve the case, I thought the way the Murderer told the story made the book even more painful for me.

Puffinjill 15 Oct 09 at 7 p.m. GMT

I'm almost sure she would have been horrified at Miss Marple being casually dropped into ANY story she hadn't originally written her into! Surely, if she had thought Miss Marple would have suited some of the other storylines, she would have put her in herself. I mean to say, SHE knew her work and her characters better than anyone else, and into which stories they all fitted.

Bundle_ 15 Oct 09 at 5:25 p.m. GMT

Tommy_A_Jones

I can think of afew ACs where Miss Marple could fit in quite nicely;

After The Funeral, Murder On The Orient Express, Endless Night, Sparkling Cyanide and Evil Under The Sun but that is just my opinion, I don't like Endless Night and Sparkling Cyanide as you know but I like the others.

I know that you don't like Endless Night, Tommy. But just b/c some people may not like it -- it doesn't warrant them to place Marple in it. For instance I didn't really care for The Sittaford Mystery book, however I still didn't like the fact that Marple was in it.

And MM really couldn't fit in Endless Night at all (though iI am sure the producers, etc will find some horrible and inconcivable way to do it) For several reasons:

ENDLESS NIGHT SPOILERS AHEAD

SPOILERS

SPOILERS

The first: The novel is a narrative and Michael Rogers is found out but essentially he is the one confessing it.

Two: Marple has a fluffy disposition and most of the mysteries AC put her in are not really all that gory, or dark. Endless Night has a particularly dark and moody feel that one can't ignore and Miss Marple would ruin the essence of it.

Thirdly: She doesn't fit in w/ the characters. They all seem so detatched and so much more serious and complex than her too.

Fourth: Endless Night was a favorite of AC's and her Max Mallowan and it would be a shame to see the plot ruined and to see different characters. I'm sure if AC were alive she would have opposed Marple in EN.

Tommy_A_Jones 15 Oct 09 at 4:46 p.m. GMT

You have mentioned your point nbefore go_leafs, It would be interesting to find out nwhy Matthew Pritchard has allowed all these Adaptations to be do unfaithful only then will we be able to perhaps see his point of view, by not telling us he is doing himself and his Grandmother an injustice, btw when was the GM version of Body In The Library as the ending of that was horrible. I can think of afew ACs where Miss Marple could fit in quite nicely;

After The Funeral, Murder On The Orient Express, Endless Night, Sparkling Cyanide and Evil Under The Sun but that is just my opinion, I don't like Endless Night and Sparkling Cyanide as you know but I like the others.

Puffinjill 15 Oct 09 at 2:24 p.m. GMT

I hadn't made that connection but it's an interesting point. Discussing the adaptations does depress me as I hate to see well loved texts altered beyond recognition. If the scriptwrtiers beleive they can write better stories/dramas than AC, then they should write completely new stories and not just try to show their 'cleverness' by changing existing ones. I wouldn't mind a series using Poirot or Miss Marple but new stories IF they were well written and faithful to the character.

But I doubt faithful is a word they understand.

go_leafs_nation 15 Oct 09 at 1 p.m. GMT

I think the writers have done an all-right job including MM and explaining her appearance (particularly in By the Pricking of My Thumbs, which I really liked), but I really would appreciate slightly more faithful adaptations than ones we've been getting at a regular basis.

I mentioned that AC's daughter died in 2004. 2004 was the year of the last "faithful" Poirot series (DOTN was filmed then, thank goodness), and even then, the Marple series was considerably faithful (Murder Is Announced, 4:50 From Paddington; Murder at the Vicarage). Note that as soon as Matthew Pritchard 'takes over', we get adaptations like Cards on the Table, Nemesis, At Bertram's Hotel, and Appointment With Death over and over again, to the point where a faithful adaptation is a rarity. Coincidence? I think not.

Bundle_ 15 Oct 09 at 12:40 p.m. GMT

3rdGirl

I've personally not read any non series AC books where Miss Marple would fit in. The only one that comes to mind is 'Dead Man's Folly' which is a Poirot book. It's my least favourite Poirot as well and maybe I'm hoping that Miss Marple would fit in with all the miserable characters and sort them out!

Your post was very apt.

btw the other non series book that was suitable for Miss Marple was Murder is Easy but somehow they managed to ruin that too.

3rdGirl 15 Oct 09 at 10:21 a.m. GMT

By the way, I forgot to add. When I watch the episodes again on DVD, I never watch the ones that weren't proper AC Miss Marple books a second time. So there must be something in that!

3rdGirl 15 Oct 09 at 10:19 a.m. GMT

I have to say, I'm a traditionalist and I think the adaptations on non-Miss Marple books and inserting her in have failed. The Tommy and Tuppence one 'By the Pricking of my Thumbs' was particularly dreadful. The really excellent ones have been the faithful adaptations.  I really would not mind if the screenwriters adapted them and they were good TV, but the ones that aren't close to the original story have generally been exceptionally silly and cartoonish in style. I agree with the view that they have enough Marple short stories to work with and they should stick to those rather than putting her in situations where she simply does not fit in.

I've personally not read any non series AC books where Miss Marple would fit in. The only one that comes to mind is 'Dead Man's Folly' which is a Poirot book. It's my least favourite Poirot as well and maybe I'm hoping that Miss Marple would fit in with all the miserable characters and sort them out!

I don't understant all the nonsense about ratings being important. I don't think it's an issue here in Australia where we have 4 channels!! ;-)I've enjoyed some of the recent adaptations, and the ones I've enjoyed ae the Marple ones.

I think the writers need to be a bit sharper when they try and fit her in where she doesn't fit!

Tommy_A_Jones 10 Feb 09 at 4:24 p.m. GMT

In The TV TIMES it says that four Miss Marples are being filmed not as wel as ITV showing Episodes scheduled for screening this year.

squatty 05 Feb 09 at 6:39 p.m. GMT

Ideally it would be great if a member of the production team would comment but all the members of the forum are living in the 21st century, so it would be nice to hear from any members why they feel the recent productions are more relevant to the 21st century (including you - s sigerson lol)

Tommy_A_Jones 05 Feb 09 at 1:35 p.m. GMT

I also Like the choice of Comedian in SOME of the 'MARPLE' Episodes I thought Catherine Tate in 'A MURDER IS ANNOUNCED' was very good and well cast and David Walliams was Excellent in 'BODY IN THE LIBRARY' in fact both he and the Actor who played the same Character in the JH version would be top of my list when choosing who to play that Character (Sorry I can't remember or find the name of the Character or the Actor in the JH version), Although the acting was fine from the Actresses in 'BODY IN THE LIBRARY' I am afraid I still cannot forgive the change of one of the Killers in that one but hey-ho I don't have to watch it again and if I do I will be warned, Like hobbit I too have secretly wondered why Miss Marple stayed a spinster but had my own theories and could have done without ITVs idea of her having an affair with a Married Man although people do have affairs with Married people I have always liked to think Miss Marple is someone who wouldn't. My own theory (If anyone wants to know) is that she had a Romance with Colonel Clithering which didn't qwuitew work out but they remained friends OR and this is probably more believable Miss Marple had a relationship with Colonel Clithering's brother who died on the Battlefield and Clithering kept in Contact with Miss Marple as a way of looking after her for his Brother. Squatty, I am afraid we will never know what makes these Productions attractive and relevent to people in 2009 and I am afraid until someone from the Series comes on here to answer that and explain why changes were made along with evidence please that it has worked I am afraid we will never know, I know I am asking the impossible but I would like proof that the Productions would not be popular if the changes had not been made, If that were possible it would in some small way make up for ruining the books.

squatty 04 Feb 09 at 8:54 p.m. GMT

Yes - I'm not disputing that the producers will want to go all out for good ratings. And I also agree that the first season of Marples were pretty good. The main point of my post was to challenge the assertion of s sigerson. He claimed that AC changed her novels when adapting them for the stage to make them more attractive to the audience of the day and infered that was the same reason why the current series have been so massively re-written. I was using those examples to try and understand what about the current productions are so appealing to a modern audience. Personally, I dont think that any of the many changes to Nemesis were made with a modern audience in mind - they were just changes to pander to the writers/producers egos. I wrote in another thread that I quite enjoyed Nemesis as a stand alone drama but feel the producers take liberties by attaching the AC name to what was a completely different story to the one AC wrote. So, my original question remains - what is it about the current adaptations that makes them more attractive and relevant to a 2009 audience, than say the early Poirots or the JH Marples

hobbit 04 Feb 09 at 7:59 p.m. GMT

I think that's right, squatty. It would, of course, be silly of the producers to decide not to shock the audience and not to try and win ratings. To be honest I actually have very little problem with the three things you listed. The casting of comedians is fine as long as they can handle the material - I personally had no problem with Jamie Theakston's turn in 'The Body in the Library'. The lesbian twist was a bit of an obvious ratings pull, though quite a well acted one from the two women I thought. I think the fact that up untill then the adaptation was pretty faithful helped me accept the change more easily. To be honest, I'd rather they made that sort of change than say a change in motive (like in 'Nemesis' for example). The love interest to which you refer is presumably the flashbacks in 'Murder at the Vicarage', well...I didn't like them but it was pretty easy to just dismiss them or simply pretend they were never there (I mean they didn't really play a role in the actual plot itself). Plus, deep down we all want some explanation as to why Miss Marple never married (though the one they gave did seem out of character at least for the Miss Marple AC wrote, if not the one Geraldine McEwan portrayed).

I actually found the first series of 'Marple' rewarding viewing. 'The Body in the Library' was very faithful up till the last twist, 'The Murder at the Vicarage' seemed to follow my memory of the novel (though doubtless there were a few changes) and, to be honest, I actually thought the other two adaptations ('4.50' and 'Murder is Announced') were MORE enjoyable than the JH versions (particularly '4.50').

It's only the most recent series, with its original screenplays sharing nothing but a name with the books AC wrote, that have really got my back up. They are re-writes - plain and simple!

Hobbit

squatty 04 Feb 09 at 6:21 p.m. GMT

I'd still like to know how the latest adaptations are more attractive to a 21st century audience. I remember the publicity before the first episode of the GM Marples (The Body In The Library). The press focused on three things; 1) Introducing a love interest for Miss Marple 2) Changing the identity of the murderer and making her a lesbian 3) The casting of comedians (David Walliams), or people not usually associated with drama (Jamie Theakston). My feeling was that all three decisions were to create the maximum impact possible because the producers hadn't enough confidence in the material and believed they had to have a shock element to win ratings.

Tommy_A_Jones 04 Feb 09 at 3:42 p.m. GMT

I am glad we agree hobbit

hobbit 03 Feb 09 at 5:52 p.m. GMT

winnebago, you took the words right out of my mouth!

Tommy_A_Jones 03 Feb 09 at 3:49 p.m. GMT

I agree with Hobbit in the sense that the Changes in the ITV Series is MUCH worse, I haven't read Nemesis but if the BBC version is closer to the book the ITV version does look like 'Murder On The Coach' and the inclusion of the Theatre Group in 'Sleeping Murder' (Which I have read) was just plain stupid the change of Identity of one of the Murderers and subsequent Lesbian aspect in 'Body In The Library' was just nasty, If you don't write for Television as you make out and you aren't a screenwriter like hobbit suggests Are you the either the person who suggests the changes or a relative of someone who commissioned the series or works on the series and am defending them so strongly as you are taking it personally? I say this as I know we fight for our loved ones more than we fight for ourselves don't we? While I do not wish you or your relative (If I am right any ill-will I will stop short of saying I hope no comments have caused offence as I stand by my belief that if ITV didn't like the books as they were written and felt that they MUST include stories Miss Marple doesn't appear in ITV should never have started the series and you seem a very strong person your relative should have used that strength which would have been bound nto rub off on them and explained to ITV that the changes are at best incredibly stupid and at worse very hurtful and insulting.

hobbit 02 Feb 09 at 7 p.m. GMT

What a wonderfully evasive answer! Sorry, S Sigerson, I just couldn't resist - having been away from the chatter for a bit. I think most on this site would argue that the changes made to the McEwan version WERE worse and were not just a 'new interpretation' but a total re-write. However I shall not present that argument myself because, as Mr Cooper pointed out, you'll probably just come back with the information that Agatha Christie herself actually made a few changes to her work (for example, doctering the ending to And Then There Were None).

Instead I shall present you with a question of my own. Are you a screenwriter for the new Marple series?

I know you've said that you do not write for television (three times in fact!!) but it's occured to me that perhaps you might rather protest too much...? I hope, if this is the case, none of has given offence with our comments. I said myself that the recent series has many merits for which it can and must be lauded. I apologise profusely if you are in fact NOT a screenwriter for Marple, but it certainly would explain the vehemence with which you make your point (perhaps ad nauseam, perhaps not - I shall not judge!)

Hobbit 

S_Sigerson 02 Feb 09 at 5:41 p.m. GMT

I do not write for television. I am sure changes were made in the version of Nemesis with Joan Hickson. Are those changes any better or any worse than the changes made in the version with Geraldine McEwan? No, they are just different changes, just a new interpretation. Full length novels and short stories written by Agatha Christie are available. Those are the "originals".

squatty 02 Feb 09 at 10:35 a.m. GMT

S Sigerson - I want to ask a question. Lets assume that you are correct about AC's decision to change her novels when adapting them for the stage and that her primary motive was to appeal to the audience at the time. If you have seen the recent TV adaptations of Nemesis and Appoinment With Death, what would your argument be for the many changes made to the original books. Nemesis had only Miss Marple surviving from the book and all the other characters were changed dramatically or new characters introduced. Appointment with Death, also introduced several new characters and had a bewildering array of sub-plots. Do you believe, the new versions are more appealing to a 21st Century audience than the orginals?

S_Sigerson 02 Feb 09 at 1:35 a.m. GMT

From what I understand Agatha Christie changed the ending because people around her said the audience (at the time) would not go for such a bleak ending. She agreed with this assessment and changed the ending. She was a clever writer so I seriously doubt she could not have come up with a way to adapt the novel keeping the original ending had she really wanted to do so. All because people like David Suchet’s Hercule Poirot and the television adaptations in general does not mean the audience of – let us say the 1940’s – would have felt the same way. Once again Agatha Christie was adapting the novels for the different audience. What works now might not work then and vice versa.

Tommy_A_Jones 30 Jan 09 at 4:17 p.m. GMT

squatty I wasn't aware of a satisfactory and beliveable excuse for the changes in the ITV 'Marple' series, If ITV felt so deeply that they should do something different perhaps they shouldn't have bought the writes to Agatha Christie's books or chosen a different Character. and as for 'Poirot' I thought David Suchet was Executive Producer of the series so if I am right he must condone the changes.

squatty 29 Jan 09 at 6:18 p.m. GMT

I always believed that AC changed the ending of ATTWN for the stage version because she believed that book ending would be impossible to reproduce on the stage. She also dropped Poirot from her stage adapatations because she felt he was more a series of mannerisms than a fully rounded character (That theory has been disproven by Suchet's Poirot). However, she,as the author felt that both changes were necessary and permissable for the benefit of the plays. Whether one agrees or disagrees with those decisions, one can hardly object to the writer's right to alter their own work. Compare those reasons to the changes in the McEwan Marples. In Body In The Library, the identity of the one of the murderers was changed and their sexuality was changed. In Nemesis, the Bradbury Scott sisters were turned into nuns. I dont think those type of changes add anything to the original and have purely a gimmick value. I find the changes made in the recent Poirots harder to take than the sweeping changes to the Marples. I suppose, for me, the JH series was made in the last 25 years and I have my complete collection to watch if I want to see a definitive version. As the previous series was made in fairly recent history, I can understand why the producers of the current Marples might want to do something different - hence the casting of several comedians; the garish photography etc. The Poirots are different and I find the changes made in the last two series harder to stomach. Watching Third Girl again the other night, I found myself feeling sorry for Suchet who has expressed his desire to film the whole body of Poirot work and is now saddled with writers obsessed with bringing in Nazi sub-plots and gratitous changes.

Tommy_A_Jones 29 Jan 09 at 3:44 p.m. GMT

Sorry Dale to keep on but S Sigerson I think your logic is flawed, An Auth has the right to change her work but I can't for the life of me understand why anybody adapting her work or the work of any other writer come to think of it has the right to do so, having said that I can only think of afew occasssions when it has actually offended me, they were 'Cards On The Table' the 'Marple versions of Body in The Library' and 'Sleeping Murder', I haven't read Nemesis yet but if the JH version was faithful to I will be adding the GM version to the list as well as the 'Marple' versions that shouldn't have Miss Marple in them

dale_cooper 28 Jan 09 at 6:42 p.m. GMT

Alright S Sigerson. You have the last word. ;)

S_Sigerson 28 Jan 09 at 6:05 p.m. GMT

Changing the ending is major re-write, just like the change in The Body in Library was a major re-write. Now continuing this train of thought, if Agatha Christie (on occasion) had to make changes, doesn’t logic dictate that any one adapting these novels might at some point need to make a small or large change for whatever reason? The answer is yes. Ergo there is no difference if the original author (in this case Agatha Christie) or a screenwriter makes said change(s).

dale_cooper 28 Jan 09 at 5:33 p.m. GMT

Your argumentum ad nauseam is really beginning to grate. The change to ATTWN was hardly a major re-write (just the very ending I believe). AC wrote ATTWN herself, and took the judgement herself that the ending wouldn't work on stage. That was her rightful decision to make.

If you wish further clarification as to why that's different to what the scriptwriters of 'Marple' have done then re-read previous posts in the thread. I've made my feelings clear on this matter.

S_Sigerson 28 Jan 09 at 5:22 p.m. GMT

How is it different? A change is a change no matter who made the change. If a major re-write is never necessary, why did Agatha Christie re-write the ending of And Then There Were None? And yes, you did say (indirectly) Agatha Christie was not a gifted writer by stating “To me the hallmark of a gifted writer would be one who could blend changes in seamlessly with the original story - as opposed to practically re-writing it!”

dale_cooper 28 Jan 09 at 4:18 p.m. GMT

Well there are clearly very many of us who doubt the 'strength' of your argument, but I do wish you'd just stop saying the same thing over and over again because, quite frankly, it's getting a little dull now. YES, Agatha Christie made changes to her work - but I agree with hobbit, Sanatonix, murderisannounced and winnebago that it was HER WORK to change and that makes it acceptable. The fact that modern day screenwriters are practically re-writing the stories is totally different and for reasons so obvious I'm sure you must be able to see them.

Of course I'm not saying Agatha Christie wasn't a gifted writer - in your own words 'I said no such thing'. A major re-write is never necessary; one might as well just adapt something else and bill it as 'based on an idea by Agatha Christie' or 'based on a title by Agatha Christie'.

I barely know why I'm bothering to respond, as its clearly very important to you that you have the last word on this topic. Please - tell us for the sixth time that 'Agatha Christie made changes to her own work', so we may further bask in the brilliance of your argument.

S_Sigerson 28 Jan 09 at 6:33 a.m. GMT

I presented a strong argument why the screenwriters had (let us say) a precedent to make changes. Agatha Christie herself wrote a different ending when she adapted And Then There Were None. Now I call that a major re-write. Are you saying Agatha Christie was not a gifted writer? Why didn’t she just blend the changes seamlessly with the original story? Because sometimes it is not possible and sometimes a major re-write is necessary for whatever reason. It doesn’t matter how many times (I only listed two examples, but there are quite a few others I did not list) Agatha Christie made small, medium or large changes when she adapted her novels; the fact is Agatha Christie did make changes when she adapted her novels. Nor does it matter if she did it 50 years ago, 100 years ago or 1000 years ago.

Santonix 28 Jan 09 at 4:42 a.m. GMT

Yes, Dame Agatha did make changes to her own stories. HER OWN. As we can see from her reactions to Alibi, Murder She Said, Murder at the Gallop, Murder Most Foul, Murder Ahoy!, Endless Night (which only added one inconsequential image at the end), Ten Little Indians (60s version), The Alphabet Murders, etc., etc., etc., she was not always understanding when other authors changed her work. actually, i think she hated it.

Mind you, at least each one of those films and plays kept the murderer's identity the same.

"I get an unregenerate pleasure when I think of them failing." -- Agatha Christie

dale_cooper 27 Jan 09 at 10 p.m. GMT

S Sigerson, will you give it up! Hobbit has summarised your vague and unimpressive argument quite nicely. He has said that for an adaptation to be of a high standard it should be faithful to the original novel, and I entirely agree with him.

Your entire point of view hinges on Agatha Christie making a couple of changes to her work 50 years ago and your groundless opinion that the adaptations are 'of the highest standard'. My understanding of Hobbit's argument is that it is disrespectful to an author's work to make dramatic changes to it (particularly as the author is not alive to intervene or express disapproval) and that opinion, to me at least, makes perfect sense.

I respect your right to give your opinions, but perhaps you could offer some justification for such lavish praise. For example your statement that the writers of Marple are 'gifted' - where did that view spring from? You may feel that they 'in no way harm the works or memory of Agatha Christie' but I for one reserve my right to disagree. To me the hallmark of a gifted writer would be one who could blend changes in seamlessly with the original story - as opposed to practically re-writing it!

As hobbit said: 'It's not saying very much for the work of Agatha Christie if one argues that her stories can only be enjoyed (and can only get high ratings) if they have to be altered'

S_Sigerson 27 Jan 09 at 7:55 p.m. GMT

Hobbit, I said no such thing. On the contrary, I have stated (under this topic and in other topics) the current television adaptations of Poirot and Marple are of the highest standards and in no way harm the works or memory of Agatha Christie. The screenwriters like Agatha Christie are gifted writers, and like Agatha Christie the screenwriters are not afraid to make changes, to ensure these adaptations are successful from both an artistic and financial standpoint.

hobbit 27 Jan 09 at 7:06 p.m. GMT

murderisannounced is right, we are getting off topic. I've stated my views S Sigerson so shan't re-iterate them. You view AC's literature as 'property' that can be hacked and whittled at for cash without even the question of morals or ethics being raised; I on the other hand view her literature as a wonderful body of work which should be respected in memory of its creator if nothing else. Let's leave it at that, shall we?

With regards to your suggestion though, murderisannounced, I'm also in total disagreement! Although I'm well aware many fans would love to see Poirot and Marple meet I'm afraid I find the idea a rather ghastly one. Moreover, as they've already done the ABC Murders I can't see Suchet running back to re-shoot it. The only mystery I could possibly, POSSIBLY see them working on together would be ATTWN - but I really don't think that would work either!

Hobbit

murderisannounced 27 Jan 09 at 5:41 p.m. GMT

I really hate to take sides in this but as far as I am concerened you don't have an argument S Sigerson, seeing as the new adaptions have made so many devoted Miss Marple fans unhappy, it plainly is not good entertainment.

Do you seriously think that by adding in a few lesbians, changing the characters, and changing the murderer, are small and decent improvements? Agatha Christie changed her plays and books because she made them, others changed one or two adaptions along the line, but none have done it so drastically and ridiculouslly as these new adaptions.

Anyway, back tot he original point of the discussion, I think they should do a Poirot and Marple ABC Murders, Poirot would do what he does in the book, but Miss Marple would turn up in Andover and Brixham (is that the right place.)

Initially the y would be enimies but then they would join together and solve the case.

S_Sigerson 27 Jan 09 at 5:24 p.m. GMT

It is not a matter of ethics as far as whether the changes made were right or wrong because this is not a moral situation where there is a right or wrong. Agatha Christie Ltd. owns the rights to the books so it’s their property and they can whatever they like – period. Agatha Christie changed the ending to And Then There Were None, she realized the audience of the 1940's would not like the ending from the book. Just like the screenwriter who recently adapted And Then There Were None for the stage changed the ending back to the book for today’s audience. When Witness for the Prosecution was adapted for the stage & cinema in the 1950's changes were made for the audience of that time. The screenwriter who adapted the most recent Body in the Library made the changes to appeal to the modern viewing audience. Previously, I said the change in Cards on the Table made perfect sense; it made the motive for one of the suspects even stronger. Homosexuality was still a criminal offense in England in 1930’s. Once again I am not a screenwriter for television, but from the favorable ratings it seems the screenwriters are doing something right. And nothing the screenwriters have done has in any way lowered the standards of Agatha Christie's mysteries. And from the favorable ratings of the All the productions have high standards. As far as objectivity goes, I am being extremely objective and simply pointed out Agatha Christie made changes when adapting her books so I don’t see how anyone can be critical of the screenwriters who make changes. You cannot pick and choose what changes are acceptable and what changes are not acceptable. I suppose you can and people have, but to me at least it sounds like you are trying to have your cake and eat too. I might have said this before, if you want a 100% Agatha Christie go and read one of her books and accept the television adaptations of Poirot and Marple for what they are – good entertainment.

hobbit 27 Jan 09 at 4:14 p.m. GMT

I can see we'll just have to agree to differ. The question is more of an ethical one than anything that can be dealt with objectively. I personally feel that dramatic changes should be made solely at the author's discretion but I can see that money and ratings must play their part as well. However would a more faithful adaptation of Nemesis really have been that bad? Would people have switched off if there hadn't been a lesbian twist at the end of Body in the Library? I'm not so sure that these changes would really have made a difference.

Tommy_A_Jones 27 Jan 09 at 2:52 p.m. GMT

That might be so S Sigerson but Agatha Christie isn't able to approve of the changes so the changes in the 'Marples' and should not be as dramatic as some of them are like the change of Murderer, Homosexual Characters who aren't Homosexual and Changing 2 Characters in 'Cards On The Table', and on the subject of that adaptation it would have been better if they couldn't have had Battle and Race they should have other Christie Characters Spence and Hastings for instance.

S_Sigerson 26 Jan 09 at 10:31 p.m. GMT

Agatha Christie made a dramatic change to the ending of And Then There Were None and several changes to Witness for the Prosecution when she adapted the novel and short story respectively for the stage. Accordingly, you could argue the changing of the murderer in one of the Marple television adaptations was a great idea and the changes made to the Poirot television adaptations were fine because Agatha Christie herself was not above or afraid to make “drastic changes”. She realized the changes were necessary just like the screenwriters today realized changes were necessary.

S_Sigerson 26 Jan 09 at 9:41 p.m. GMT

Ratings are virtually irrelevant? I would say the people who invested millions and millions of Pounds to make these adaptations would disagree with that statement. I am not a screenwriter for television so I do not presume to know what is involved or what would be commercially viable, but I am sure it is difficult and it is not possible to adapt a novel to television word for word. Changes are necessary. However, I have demonstrated Agatha Christie knew changes were necessary and actually made drastic changes (the removal of a main character – Hercule Poirot) when she adapted her books for the stage. Agatha Christie did not adapt her books for the stage in the hopes they would break even or lose money. She wanted the stage productions to be successful and make money. Agatha Christie Ltd owns the copyrights to Agatha Christie's books. They in turn sold the rights to a production company who gave the screenwriters authorization to adapt the novels for television. Therefore, there is no question the screenwriters had every right to do what they did. Actually, I am not assuming anything. I based my opinion on the fact Agatha Christie omitted Poirot when she adapted her novels for the stage and it worked. Logically if the change worked in a stage production, the same change would work in a television adaptation. Agatha Christie proved you could omit the main detective from a stage production without a negative impact to the plot. So it is not a giant leap to argue you could successful insert Miss. Marple into a television adaption even though she was not in the novel the television adaptation was based on.

hobbit 26 Jan 09 at 7:28 p.m. GMT

Mr Sigerson, I find your argument interesting but simply cannot agree with it. Of course Agatha Christie made changes in her work - but that surely is an author's right. She created the works - therefore she had every right to re-adapt them, chop and change them and re-vamp them however and whenever she pleased.

In contrast you, I and the script-writers of 'Marple' have no right to presume to know what would or would not work better than Mrs Christie, and thus should show respect and decency to the original novel. Ratings are virtually irrelevant. No-one here would argue that the 'Marple' adapts are redundant and unenjoyable - but they are not by any means perfect. Perfection (I believe) can only be achieved by fidelity to the work in question, and the writers of 'Marple' are promiscous to an extreme! It's not saying very much for the work of Agatha Christie if one argues that her stories can only be enjoyed (and can only get high ratings) if they have to be altered (in some cases dramatically altered).

To call AC's novels 'basically puzzles with clues' seems a very simplistic view of her literature. Each book has its own set of themes, its own tonality (comic, adventurous, dark, gothic, creepy etc.) and most importantly its own detective - who plays an integral role in the pacing of the entire novel.

That said I would love to have read of novel with AC herself as the detective - I'm sure it would have been hilarious (though some argue that Ariadne Oliver isn't far off this)! However to automatically assume that such an inclusion would have worked fine is a mighty assumption to make.

Hobbit

S_Sigerson 26 Jan 09 at 6:58 p.m. GMT

Agatha Christie removed Hercule Poirot from a couple of the stage adaptations of her novels. She transferred the lines and detecting to the other character(s) and the changes worked well. I see no difference between removing the detective and inserting a new detective. So there is no difference in what today’s screenwriters have done with inserting Miss. Marple into non-Miss. Marple books and what Agatha Christie did herself when she removed Hercule Poirot. Obviously Agatha Christie thought it was a good idea just like the screenwriters thought it was a good idea. And according to the ratings, viewers do not have a problem with what the screenwriters have done. It doesn’t matter if it is Poirot, Marple or someone else for that matter because changing the detective does not have an impact on the plot. Most of Agatha Christie’s books are basically puzzles with clues. If you wanted to, you could remove Miss. Marple from A Body in the Library and Hercule Poirot from Death on the Nile and put in a detective by the name of Agatha Christie to solve the case and the change would work fine.

Tommy_A_Jones 26 Jan 09 at 12:55 p.m. GMT

I agree with you GK Fan, I too would love them to do One Hour Adaptations of the short stories and think they will be better received by the fans than the idea of putting Miss Marple in stories she shouldn't be in. However, when I wrote my post above I forgot to mention Endless Night as I can see her in that as there is an old lady at the start of that who could be given a bigger part and after all isn't Endless Night based on a short story featureing Miss Marple?so haveing her in it wouldn't be too bad, I didn't like the book and having Miss Marple could be an improvement, I am sorry if this offends anyone.

Santonix 26 Jan 09 at 3:45 a.m. GMT

Endless Night i could see them sticking her in, but that would be unfortunate since, you know, it's a character study. WHATEVER, they'll say. Sparkling Cyanide is far more likely, but I still think they're going to adapt a short story: Philomel Cottage. I've said this before, and I can see it happening.

hobbit 25 Jan 09 at 10:09 a.m. GMT

To be honest GKC, now that I have seen how this 'Marple' series has panned out, I also wish they had just done the Miss Marple short stories. I wouldn't have even minded if they'd been fleshed out to two hour adaptations (bringing in a whole host of other suspects), as 1, we've never seen them on film before (thus would not have the near-perfect JH versions to compare them with) and 2, they would have had far more of a justification for being 'creative' with the plot.

 How many Miss Marple novels are they stuck with (well, that's how it feels to a viewer!) having to adapt? I make it just 2 - 'Mirror Crack'd' and 'Caribbean Mystery'. Hopefully that means we've just got one more series of this show to come, as I would really hate for them to do a WHOLE SERIES of non-Marple stories (though if ratings stay good I fear that's the very dark tunnel the Marple team will boldly venture down).

Hobbit

go_leafs_nation 25 Jan 09 at 1:07 a.m. GMT

It's a good question, because the remaining novels are quite unlike MM's usual adventures. Passenger to Frankfurt, Postern of Fate, The Man in the Brown Suit? I can't see any possibilities other than Sparkling Cyanide and/or (sadly) Crooked House.

GKCfan 24 Jan 09 at 8:18 p.m. GMT

I've been saying for years that I'd like to see one-hour adaptations of the Miss Marple short stories. Like the Poirot one-hour adaptations, sometimes the plots would have to be padded in order to fill the time slot, so I could understand the screenwriters fulfilling their desire to show how creative they are in order to add another twenty minutes. I think it would be interesting to see the "village parallels" Miss Marple refers to actually fleshed out, instead of just briefly referenced by her.

Tommy_A_Jones 24 Jan 09 at 5:12 p.m. GMT

In would chose some of the Poirot stories but I know I would be in a Minority of 1 so I will just say Crooked House and Sparkling Cyanide, as I wouldn't like her to be in the Bundle Books and I think I read she was going to be in Why Didn't They Ask Evans (Pity as it's a great book) and she would need a time machine to be in Death Comes As The End. and I haven't read Passenger to Frankfurt, Destination Unknown and They Came to Baghdad so wouldn't like to say them, I can soet of see her in The Man In The Brown Suit though replacing Mrs Blair but I hope she doesn't as I like the book

squatty 24 Jan 09 at 3:36 p.m. GMT

Thats a really tough question. I started to run through all the non Poirot/Marple books to see which ones I thought Miss Marple would fit best into and then realised that was completely pointless. The recent adaptations have been so far removed from the original books that the current team of screenwriters could probably take the most unlikely of novels and manage to contrive a new plot to accomodate Miss Marple.