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

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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'

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

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.