Have Your Say

Discuss Marple

Talk about everything Marple related here!

Nemesis

squatty 22 Oct 08 at 5:43 p.m. GMT

I watched Paul O'Grady tonight and he had both Anne Reid and Will mellor on who met whilst filming Nemesis.

They both seemed really baffled about when it is going to be shown.

I know from some of the reviews I've read on here that many people feel it is not up to scratch and the producers have taken terrible liberties with the book. But surely, it still warrants a screening.

Perhaps if it is really as bad as people say it is, it could be shown directly on ITV3 with all the other murder mystery dramas

Login or register to add posts and reply

40 replies

Reverse order

devilgal19 21 Mar 09 at 7:45 p.m. GMT

I enjoyed the book(one of my favourite) and the tv/movie although different from the book wasn't all that bad.

squatty 15 Feb 09 at 11:37 a.m. GMT

Re-watched this yesterday and despite the slating its attracted I can see that the writers made a siginifcant change that makes the programme more logical than the book. In the TV episode, the murderer was actually a member of the coach party; in the book, the same murderer didnt actually go on the coach. So, with the book, I was always left with the question, how did the murderer know that certain people would be in certain places at certain times. It is never explained in the denoument. At least, the TV version dealt with these inconsistencies

Tommy_A_Jones 08 Jan 09 at 3:38 p.m. GMT

I agree pghfan but as that is the case at least they should either give the episodes different names or say the episodes are LOOSELY baased on the books.

pghfan 07 Jan 09 at 8:44 p.m. GMT

Good comments GKC--the answers would be interesting, provided anyone was brave enough to give them. Given that some of the adaptations have almost nothing to do with the original story, I wonder if there have been any discussions on just creating brand new stories for Miss M (and Poirot). Not that I would like that, but frankly, we don't seem to be very far from that right now.

Willard 05 Jan 09 at 5:09 p.m. GMT

Maybe you're right, Squatty, about writers and nuns.  After all, Raymond West, when he sees the two sisters arriving for the coach, does say to MM, 'There's something about nuns, don't you think?  All that scratchy black.'

Tommy_A_Jones 05 Jan 09 at 4:54 p.m. GMT

If you are right hobbit in your theory about Stephen Churchett I wish he had told the Producer to give the job of Adapting the book to someone who liked it, I chose to ignor the fact it was based on Nemesis and imagined I was watching just a Murder Mystery, I haven't read the book but have seen the Joan Hickson version and also have the Audio Cassette with among others June Whitfield, David Swift and Thelma Barlow and was sorry that Miss Cooke was not in it and if tyhere nhad to be Nuns (Stephen Churchett using another definition of the word Sister) I wish there had been 3 of them, Also as it was so far removed from the actual book I think there is a case for Stephen Churchett changing nthe identity of the Murderer so if people who have never read the book, watched the JH version or listened to the Audio Cassette wishes to read thebook they can without it being spoilt for them, I also saw the excuse you referred to hobbit and I think it is just silly, surely if you are wanting to start reading Agatha Christie books and be a fan you want to see it done the proper way and if you don't I wouldn't think you would watch surely or am I missing something?

hobbit 04 Jan 09 at 8:28 p.m. GMT

Well, initially I believe the justification they gave for their 'interesting' new plot twists was that they were attempting to make the adaptations appeal more to a modern-day audience (which makes the famous lesbian twist half understandable as that's the sort of thing I believe gets viewers these days). However that explanation seems to have fallen a bit flat, as IMO a total re-write seems to indicate more of a feeling of contempt and derision towards the original work. What writer would be happy with such a demolition of their novel? Stephen Churchett must just have read the novel and thought 'God, what a load of all rubbish this is, I'm not wasting my time adapting THIS' and thought up an idea of his own. I'm sorry but Nemesis was not a 'fresh twist' on the original, but a completely different story with the same title.

Tommy_A_Jones 04 Jan 09 at 1:46 p.m. GMT

I too feel the same way that GKC fan feels and would also like to know why ITV bothered to do the series if they thought they needed to make such drastic changes, surely if they didn't think the books were3 good enough as they are they should have bought something they didn't need changing.

squatty 04 Jan 09 at 12:15 p.m. GMT

With the benefit of three day's hindsight, I know that I enjoyed Nemesis, purely as a piece of two hour escapist entertainment. I have got very wound up in the past by other changes to the original books and like you hobbit, I loathed the GM version of At Bertrams Hotel. I guess that why my response to Nemesis was different was that it was so far removed from the book, that I didnt find myself making comparisons and just watched it as an almost new mystery. And in those terms, I felt it worked pretty well. I do accept the point about the latest version losing the strength of the murderer's love for Verity. I think that is partly down to the script but,as much as I love Amanda Burton, I think it was asking her to act outside her normal range. In the JH version, Margaret Tyzack was utterly chilling but managed to be totally believeable as a middle aged woman who had lost someone she loved dearly. However, I totally understand the opinions about the re-writing of AC's works and I have got the impression in recent Marples and Poirots that the writers are only using the Christie name because they know it will guarantee a sizeable audience. The ammount of disrespect shown to AC is incredible. On a lighter note, I work as a psychotherapist and I'd love to have a session with the current batch of writers about their pre-occupation with nuns. I was reading a review of Appointment With Death and apparently, an unexpected nun appears in that one as well. Nazis seem to be cropping up a lot as well. I wonder if there isnt some private joke going on amongst the producters that is going straight over my head.

hobbit 04 Jan 09 at 11:52 a.m. GMT

This reply contains spoiler information. Show reply

I'm afraid I can't agree with you, squatty. I hated 'Nemesis', not even finding it entertaining but just plain irritating. I personally have no problem with their making changes - I agree the JH versions were very faithful, so there's no need to repeat them. But these changes simply weren't for the better. The introduction of nuns to the story was totally unecessary and added nothing to the adaptation, other than a mindless attack on the Christian faith. The reason I'm so annoyed is because the novel's brilliant love/hate motive gave us true psychological insight into why the killer did what she did - this version, if you hadn't read the novel left you with the impression Clothide was just a nutty nun, who was on God's mission or something... That's where these screen-writers have fallen down I think - they think to adapt a Christie you have to make the plot convoluted and confusing throughout. They don't appreciate the basic simplicity of each crime and each motive. Betram's hotel is another example of where a screen-writer got too carried away with monstrous jazz bands (with Miss Marple all but body-popping to the beat) and a stupidly elaborate charade in the mist. Once again this left us with an extremely confusing finish and unrealistic motive. These changes are not for the better!!! Why can't they judge what will work and what won't? Hobbit

GKCfan 03 Jan 09 at 8:12 p.m. GMT

You know, I would be a lot less prone to whine about changes if I could read an in-depth interview with the screenwriters where they explained 1) why they made the changes that they did, 2) why they believed that certain aspects needed improvement, 3) what they felt they needed to do in order to make their work different from past adaptations (where applicable) and attract a 21st-century audience, 4) their personal opinions on Christie's work and legacy, and 5) what they are trying to accomplish with their work (artistically, socially, career-wise, etc.). If I could understand the motives of the screenwriters, I could appreciate their changes much better.

Tommy_A_Jones 02 Jan 09 at 1:12 p.m. GMT

Marc why should we have to put up with all the changes? I admit I haven't seen last night's 'Nemesis' yet and I haven't read the book althou I have seen the JH version but surely they could do a re-make without doing as carbon-copy, I have seen 2 versions of 'The Mirror Crack'd, 'A Carribean Mystery' and 'They Do it With Mirrors' and in each case they are very similar so if they were to be 'Carbon Copies ' would it matter? I think the fans of an Author have a right to expect the work would be Televised without changes or what's the point of the book being done but I gave up long ago expecting the Makers to car about us or Agatha Christie and I just watch them A) Probably mis-guided loyalty to Agatha Christie and B) this type of Television is so rare these days as there is so much Sport, Soaps and Reality TV televised.

Marc_Anton 02 Jan 09 at 12:50 p.m. GMT

That's the spirit! Why not just enjoy something for what it is instead of nitpicking about 'changes'? After all, since there is already a 'definitive' version of Nemisis, an exact carbon copy would not hold any surprises for me. I enjoyed the new Nemisis too, it is a nice piece of hokum, with some very anoying characters, a plot that is even more complicated (with several loose ends) than the original novel. You don't need to be a Miss Marple to detect several plotholes in this version but hey, does it matter?

david_jones 02 Jan 09 at 11:35 a.m. GMT

I'm surprised, too, that I found myself enjoying last night's "Nemesis" on ITV1. If you hadn't read the book or seen the definitive Joan Hickson version, then it was all good entertainment with good actors and lovely settings. The pity was that it only paid passing reference to the book (unlike the BBC version). For example, how Clotilde Bradbury-Scott was transformed into a nun was mystifying! It's just such a shame that after the faithful Poirot stories with David Suchet, the MISS Marple stories have been changed so much. The changes to the first one, The Body in the Library, were unforgiveable!

squatty 02 Jan 09 at 7:16 a.m. GMT

I can't believe I'm actually writing this but I enjoyed the screening last night. Apart from Miss Marple, there wasn't a single character who remained intact from how they were written in the book but for once, that didnt bother me. In its own way, the plot did hold together fairly well and the denoument felt plausible to me. However, it was a case of dumbing down though. The key clue about the discovery of the piece of straw and the scarecrow wouldnt have been stretching a reader of the Famous Five books. There were a few unanswered questions for me at the end. In particular, why was Johnny Brigg's wife pretending to be Verity and if the real Verity had only gone missing a few years beforehand, why did none of the characters who knew Verity ever reveal she was an imposter?

hobbit 24 Dec 08 at 5:44 p.m. GMT

Either the people working on this site haven't read this thread or they have a very ironic sense of humour! "Starring Richard E. Grant of Gosford Park fame, the film does justice to the very final book Agatha Christie ever wrote..." (if you don't know what I'm talking about look at the site's front page!)

Marc_Anton 24 Dec 08 at 9:46 a.m. GMT

Major, you are right, Raffiel acted as a kind of initiator to launch the story and to send Miss Marple on her track. Only a person with great organisation skills and financial means could fix something like that. Unlike Poirot, Marple did not meet many millionaires in her life so I guess Christie used the one very wealthy person Marple ever encountered and wove the plot about Raffiel's son around this character. The coach tour was a nice idea, it made Marple more mobile, at her age the only alternative for a story was keeping her in St. Mary Mead with the risk of encounter some of the old familiar faces again (nice, but not very suitable for an interesting plot). I always found the idea to stick Miss Marple in the Caribbean a bit forced, it is such an unlikely place to send her to. It can't have been easy for her to get there (no direct flights in the 1960s), why not the south of France, Spain or Mallorca for her to recover?

major_pallgrave 24 Dec 08 at 2:06 a.m. GMT

I think both gkcfan and Marc Anton have made very good points for either side of the was it-wasn't it a sequel debate. I agree with gkc when he says there is a stronger link between these two books than any other in the series. As well as the Raffiels there are brief appearences by several other charachters from the Carribean Mystery albeit through a description of what has become of them in theinterim rather than them taking any active part in Nemesis. Marples constant references to Rafiel and questioning of his intentions as the narrative progresses does constantly remind the reader of A Carribbean Mystery and this serves(rightly or wrongly) to reinforce the link between the two works. I would, on balance have to agree with Marc Anton on this one. If one were to interpret Raffiel's presence in both works as an indication that what we have here are a work and its sequel then the same argument could well be made for The Mirror crack'd being somehow some kind of loose sequel to The Body in the Library through Dolly Bantry's substantial presence in both works and the natural progression of her life and remembrances of the "Library" adventure being described in The Mirror Crack'd. Ultimately i think Raffiel was revisited for use as a "propellar" into the story in Nemesis. A creditable means by which Miss Marple might be found embarking upon a mystery set on a coach tour of historic houses at her by now very advanced years. After all she can't ALWAYS only do things like this because Raymond sends her off for a break!

Tommy_A_Jones 17 Dec 08 at 4:12 p.m. GMT

McGinty I appreciate you are entitltled to your own opinion as I am entitled to mine I just find it odd that you applaud to adaptations that had Miss Marple in when the books didn't, perhaps Geraldine Mkewan's clumsy portrayal is influenceing me as I liked the 2 films Margaret Rutherford did when she played Miss Marple when Poirot is the actual Sleuth. Incidently I have my Television Magazines and Nemesis is on in Britain on New Year's Day.

McGinty 17 Dec 08 at 10:07 a.m. GMT

Winnebago - I can say 'that' because that is how I feel. I'm not saying that Towards Zero and Ordeal By Innocence follow the novels exactly, what I am saying is that they are truer to the novels than Nemesis and At Bertram's Hotel, with or without Miss Marple. Personally I found By the Pricking of My Thumbs to be complete tosh,alcoholic Tuppence included, but appreciate that you have every right to have enjoyed it. At least Zero and Innocence stuck to the story and didn't invent sub plots. I agree with you on one thing, some of the short stories could easily be turned into 90 minute films.

Tommy_A_Jones 16 Dec 08 at 4:37 p.m. GMT

McGinty, the Writers think they can do better tyhan the books because the Television Executives let them probably with an inducement that if they do they will have something of their own work televised and how you can say that TOWARDS ZERO and the other one you mentioned are more faithful when they should not have had Miss Marple in I don't know, I was so dissapointed with TOWARDS ZERO, I liked the Scotsman in the book and was real;ly angry Battle wasn't in it, Why is it that He hasn't been portrayed since Harry Andrews played him in SEVEN DIALS when there are Actors who could play him really well, My favourite MARPLE Episode that should not have had her nin was BY THE PRICKING WITH MY THUMB which I enjoyed along with A MURDER IS ANNOUNCED and BODY IN THE LIBRARY. Lets hope they will improve when Julia McKenzie takes the role, Not that I blame Geraldine Mkewan, although I do think an actress of her Calibre should have stood up to the Makers and insisted on doing them properly and not doing ORDEAL BY INNOCENSE, TOWARDS ZERO, BY THE PRICKING OF MY THUMB and THE SITTORFORD MYSTERY, I would have preferred them to stretch out the short stories but I think I am in the Minority in that way.

GKCfan 15 Dec 08 at 9:46 p.m. GMT

(continued) In short, Miss Marple, in these stories, serves as more than just an identifier of the guilty; she is a protector of the innocent as well. If we accept "Sleeping Murder" as being set in the 1940's or 1950's chronologically, by "Nemesis," Miss Marple has shifted her views on justice for cold cases considerably. Before, her attitude was "let well enough alone." By "Nemesis," she has not just a "Murder will out" attitude, but also a "justice MUST be done attitude." I think that there are two primary transformational influences on her character. The first is her adoption of the role of Nemesis in "Carribbean." The second is the fact that she was unable to save the life of a friend in "Pocketful of Rye."

GKCfan 15 Dec 08 at 9:38 p.m. GMT

I agree that the "Nemesis" isn't really a sequel of "A Caribbean Mystery" any more than "Mrs. McGinty's Dead" is a sequel of "Cards on the Table" because it brings back the character of Mrs. Oliver. But I think there is a stronger connection between "Nemesis" and "Caribbean" than any other pair of Miss Marple novels because it is a continuation of the theme of Miss Marple as Nemesis. It's a major psychological and character development for her because she explores why she detects and her reasons for doing so. These two mysteries are the only ones where Miss Marple has to do more than just solve murders. In "Carribbean," she not only has to save a character's life, but also that character's sanity. In "Nemesis," much more so than the other retrospective-murder novel "Sleeping Murder," Miss Marple has to correct an interpretation of the past and exonerate someone.

Marc_Anton 15 Dec 08 at 9:55 a.m. GMT

This topic comes up every year. Nemisis is NOT a sequel of A Caribbean Mystery, at least not the way sequels mostly go. After all, the main character (apart from the murderer) is the son and not the father, and since the son wasn't even mentioned in 'Caribbean', you can not speak of a sequel. The books are so unlike and one can be read without any knowledge of the other. Even the apreciation is different: 'Caribbean' is the ideal vacation book ('A Christie for the beach!') while a lot of readers find Nemisis very gloomy and even dull (I am not one of them). A word about the Hickson-version: Michael Rafiel was very 'Prince Charming' and I found the ending rather Hollywood (Cinderella DID go to the ball).

GKCfan 14 Dec 08 at 10:04 p.m. GMT

In any case, the Joan Hickson Miss Marple series filmed "Nemesis" before "A Caribbean Mystery." too.  Part of the reason might lie in the location- it costs more to film there, so it was put off.  In the Hickson story, Rafiel is just given a brief backstory (Miss Marple refers to an old case and says "We were allies...").  In the McEwan version, there are so many changes to the Rafiel backstory and father/son relationship that the chronology doesn't matter.

Tommy_A_Jones 10 Dec 08 at 4:09 p.m. GMT

In the paper it said Nemewsis was being shown before New Year, What I would love to know is why was it made BEFORE A Carribean Mystery? I admit I have not read either book but Didn't Miss Marple first Meet Jason Raphael in A Carribean Mystery and Why did the BBC and ITV show Body In The Library before Murder At The Vicarage which was published earlier?.

Willard 09 Dec 08 at 5:34 p.m. GMT

Nemesis is now scheduled for New Year's Day at 9.00pm on ITV.

McGinty 27 Nov 08 at 1:31 p.m. GMT

For those in the UK who have yet to see this episode, ITV will show it the sunday before Christmas

Marc_Anton 15 Nov 08 at 5:59 a.m. GMT

I guess they needed a side-kick for Miss Marple in the Hickson version because so many pages in the novel have Marple reflecting on the mystery just being by herself, going over her own mind and the following the various threads of her investigation. It would be very difficult to film that. Well, actually, it could be done but I think it would be a bit too sophisticated for the average Christie-public. Think of the novel The Hours, everybody said it could not be filmed and it was, and beautifully too. I did not like the 'happy ending' of Nemisis, it was very teevee, the ending in the novel was more wise and realistic.

Since this a not a film post, we can discuss novel AND TV-version. I liked the novel too, the plot is complex indeed and it is a kind of cumulation of various plotting techniques Christie used over the years: murders in the past and present, a mix-up over bodies, twisted love-hate (never been done to this extreme by Christie). It also gives a good picture of Marple getting (and feeling) really old, something Christie must have felt herself at that time.

drdavid 14 Nov 08 at 8:12 p.m. GMT

there seems to be quite a trend in literature as well as tv of invading books and re arranging them. On television recently was Lost in Austen and I read The Eyre Affair which had a similar idea. I feel that the scriptwriters of Nemesis have invaded the book and taken up a few of the original ideas from the Christie novel ~ one that I have always held in great admiration considering she was in her 80s when she wrote it and it is a fairly complex plot that is neatly tied up and I beleive the only actual sequel Christie ever wrote~ and fabricated the rest. To be fair a similar invasion was made in the Hickson version where a totally fabricated nephew Lionel accompanied Jane on her coach tour and appeared to end up happily with Michael Rafiel. The McEwen version is worth seeing as it is so beautifully photographed and if for no other reason should make you return to the book again

go_leafs_nation 08 Nov 08 at 1:40 a.m. GMT

The one good thing MARPLE did (strictly script-related) was have Kevin Elyot as a screenwriter. He adapted DEATH ON THE NILE and FIVE LITTLE PIGS for Poirot; TOWARDS ZERO, THE MOVING FINGER, and THE BODY IN THE LIBRARY for Marple. I realise the last one had a change that outraged fans, but the script until that point was completely faithful to the book.

McGinty 04 Nov 08 at 4:03 p.m. GMT

Don't forget the coach tour ! Oh and there is a character called Jason Rafiel. But yes squatty, this is a totally different story to the one Agatha Christie wrote. It sort of reminds me of the old Margaret Rutherford films. Except not funny.Or worthwhile. Hopefully it will never get shown on television!

go_leafs_nation 04 Nov 08 at 10:16 a.m. GMT

Sorry, squatty. The movie butchers just about everything the book was about. There are no more three sisters. They've been A) reduced to two and B) turned into nuns.

The movie has only the same title as the book. There are practically no other similarities.

squatty 04 Nov 08 at 7:06 a.m. GMT

Oh dear. Nazis and Nuns. I suspect a total plot change. Are the three elderly sisters from the manor house still intact?

go_leafs_nation 04 Nov 08 at 1:25 a.m. GMT

I wonder why the scriptwriters in Series 3 had some sort of obsession with Nazis. Did one of them remember the term from their history class proudly, and decided to include it in their next script?

vansittart 23 Oct 08 at 8:29 p.m. GMT

You're right squatty, there are no nuns in the book but since when did that stop the makers of 'Marple'. I agree with McGinty in that I've enjoyed the Marple series on the whole and have found them a refreshing new slant on the stories, they look good and have terrific casts but there have been a couple of stinkers in there and 'Nemesis' regrettably is one of them. The Joan Hickson version is infinitely superior - indeed one of the best ever of the Hickson films!

squatty 23 Oct 08 at 5:37 p.m. GMT

On Paul O'Grady, Anne Reid said that she played a nun! I dont remember any nuns from the book. I'm dreading watching this episode when it eventually airs

McGinty 23 Oct 08 at 11:28 a.m. GMT

When Anne Reid posed the question, I wanted to shout back at the screen 'Because it's rubbish!'. Just like 'At Bertram's Hotel' the screenwriter doesn't seem to have read the original book at all, just flicked through it and got a few pointers and then gone off and written a story about a coach trip, and really nothing else in common with the original story.I've got to put my hand up and say that I've actually enjoyed most of the GM Marples and failed to understand the great hue and cry surrounding them. True, they're completely different from the Hickson's, but really that's no bad thing, there would be no point remaking them otherwise. And I've actually found a couple of them BETTER than the Hickson's - 'The Moving Finger' being a case in point. But then they had to go and spoil them by producing piffle like the Sittaford Mystery, Bertram's and now Nemesis. Makes me wish they'd just left them alone. It's baffling to me that out of the four recent films the two that are truest to the original books are the two that Miss Marple doesn't belong in, Towards Zero and Ordeal By Innocence. Why these, presumably, young screenwriters believe they can write a better story than Agatha Christie is beyond comprehension. I wish they would go and get a job writing for Midsomer Murders instead and leave Christie to someone who would show some respect, not just to the original works but to us, the viewers.

drdavid 22 Oct 08 at 9:11 p.m. GMT

I too have just watched a complete Nemesis after squinting at the pieces on Youtube and am quite baffled as to what the screenplay writer was actually trying to achieve changing quite so much. It has been reduced to a sort of "Death on the Coach" to compete with the Nile and Orient Express. In its own way it makes some kind of sense but was this production of one of Agatha's greatest late achievements and certainly the book in which the true nature of Miss Marple is revealed that of Redemptive Agent the right way to bring it to a new audience. I think not

vansittart 22 Oct 08 at 7:24 p.m. GMT

This is timely because I've just rewatched 'Nemesis' as part of the new DVD set. I think it does deserve a screening so that everyone can make their own minds up. For me it remains the 2nd most disappointing in the Marple series (no.1 being 'Sittaford'). I suppose it can be argued that the book has problems of its own, being one of Christie's last works (its actually a personal favourite of mine) but its a model of clarity and sense compared to the latest telly version which is a terrible old mess. I won't go into any details because I don't want to spoil anything but they really have changed an awful lot and not for the better. I'm not a staunch traditionalist; I've actually enjoyed a couple of the more 'changed' Marples ('Sleeping Murder' for one) but for me 'Nemesis' just didn't work! A waste of some good actors.