Have Your Say

Television and Film

Talk about Christie TV and Film here

Appropriate story line changes

Bundle_ 27 Aug 09 at 7:13 p.m. GMT

Go leafs and I were having a discussion in the Poirot and Marple in the US thread, and I would just like to know from everyone: When do you think it is appropriate in an adaptation for a screen writer to modify a plot significantly?

For example: is it okay to do this if the book is boring?

(Sorry for posting this twice but I had to edit it).

Login or register to add posts and reply

41 replies

Reverse order

Lil_Bit 23 Jul 10 at 3:33 a.m. GMT

AndThenThereWasTim

Question: Do you think that taking the Allertons out of the Ustinov Death on the Nile was justified?

I have no problem with it. Honestly, I didn't think they were very interesting characters, and it gave Bette Davis a chance to be sleazy. If the Allertons had been in the Ustinov version, Davis would have just been playing a domineering, miserable old woman.

Given how many characters there were in the novel, I think it was necessary to omit some of the characters just to make the story fit into a 90-120 minute time frame. DOTN is one of Christie's longer books, which makes it difficult to film.

MissQuin 01 Jul 10 at 3 p.m. GMT

This reply contains spoiler information. Show reply

For once, I'm in  comeplete agreement with you lonewolf!! Tim in the Suchet version was awful. he was so lsimy and his voice sounded false and effected. The way he slobbered over his mother's hands too, urgh. I couldn't help wish he would be the next victim.

Lone_Wolf 30 Jun 10 at 5:36 p.m. GMT

I disliked the way they interpreted Tim Allerton in the Suchet version, though it has more to do with the way that added a "sleazy" flavour to the character.

MissQuin 30 Jun 10 at 4:07 p.m. GMT

Ive not seen the Ustinov version of Death In Nile. But I have to say, taking them out of it's a shame. I rather missed Angela Sutcliffe in the suchet Three Act Tradgey.

But on the other hand, the Suchet version had the Allertons, but added a werid plot involving either Tim's gay (he wasn't) or having incest realtions with his mother!! No I don't think that can possibly justified as an "appropriate" storyline. Inappropriate, yes! Same goes for Taken at the flood. "Lets add incest to make things exciting!" No thank you. The olny time that was even part of a Chrisite plot was one book.

I don't mind them showing Hinch and Amy and Mr Pye homosexual, because frankly, they might be.

But giving Miss Marple an affair with a married man? Not really. She did have romances in her youth. But it's never mentioned she had an affair. She always strikes me as moral and doens't really approve of affairs. They can say that "it pads out the character" and such, but really it's just annoying. They could also say Poirot fathered 12 illiegitmate children too, just to "add some more background to the character"!! Where will it end?

AndThenThereWasTim 28 Jun 10 at 4:35 p.m. GMT

I agree with Wolf. I liked Cat Among the Pigeons when the woman was murdered with a Javalin instead of being shot like the book. It does not neccessary have to be so black and white though. THe book and the Adapt can be good even if they are not the same.

Question: Do you think that taking the Allertons out of the Ustinov Death on the Nile was justified?

Lone_Wolf 28 Jun 10 at 6:49 a.m. GMT

Argument from popularity. Just because she is a best-seller doesn't mean she is perfect. And sometimes, stuff that works well in the book doesn't work well on screen.

applechristie 27 Jun 10 at 4:50 p.m. GMT

I've never seen a change to one of Christie's plots that made the movie better than the book. How can the best selling author of all time be wrong about her own books?

AndThenThereWasTim 27 Jun 10 at 4:39 p.m. GMT

I Liked Chimneys.. Then again I never read the book LOL

Number3 27 Jun 10 at 2:42 p.m. GMT

I just saw the adaptation of "Chimneys."   It made me scream and throw things at the tube, which I don't usually do.  I'm not going to spoil it for those who haven't seen it.  If this is one of your favourite stories be pepared .

AndThenThereWasTim 26 Jun 10 at 4 p.m. GMT

Nah.. Im one of them

Proud Resident of the most Republican County in California

McGinty 26 Jun 10 at 10:40 a.m. GMT

AndThenThereWasTim

  But then again im from a much more Conservative area.

Perhaps you should move !

AndThenThereWasTim 24 Jun 10 at 7:24 p.m. GMT

In books sometimes there are what I would call dead scenes (CS Lewis's Prince Caspian has the scene with the Kids in the boat) that have to be deleted because they are long and somewhat dry when put to film.

Cards on the Table was by far the worst purpitrator of Story line changes. They completely altered the story for no apparent reason into this horrible nonsensical show.

I have equal problems with story line changes to add sex scenes and gay couples. (Body in the Library (McEwan) Most of the time they are simply to add sensationalism.  But then again im from a much more Conservative area.

MissQuin 17 Jun 10 at 2:32 p.m. GMT

Yes, but as that was Agatha Chrisite making the decision to change her own story. She had the right to and the writing ability. She loved Miss Marple but probably wouldn't have put her into her non serires adapts.

The main problem for me is that when Marple is added, the orignal sleuth becomes an uninteresting spare part.

The Pricking of my thumbs-Tuppence a drunk and embarrasment.

Ordeal by innocence-the doctor/original sleuth a bumbling idiot.

Murder is Easy- Luke Fitwilliam aimless slightly gormless and not needed.

The Sittaford mystery- well I hated Chalres and Emily anyway, but that wa altered too.

Towards Zero- Battle replaced with another detecive, whose overbearing, clueless and bullying towards old ladies! Very bad casting actually as well.

It does make me wonder about adapts that are lined up. Will The Pale Horse's Mark Easterbrook become another spare part? I hope not, as I find him someone appealing.

Lil_Bit 17 Jun 10 at 5:37 a.m. GMT

A lot of people seem to be upset about the changing of detectives (particularly the new Marple films), but I'm really not convinced that it's such a serious offense. Even Christie did so--she replaced Poirot with Race when she expanded "Yellow Iris" into Sparkling Cyanide, and Death on the Nile was originally intended to be a Marple novel.

MissQuin 19 Apr 10 at 5:49 p.m. GMT

That's a really touching comment McGinty. I wish I could changes some peoples opinons, but sadly I can't. I'm hetrosexual, but I'm upset by of people's bigortry of any kind.  If it's because of peoples's sexuality, gender, race or religion.

On a lighter note fo AC fans: if a characater is described as plain in the book, but in an adapt, the actor/acctress that plays them is really attractive, then is this ok? I can think of a fair few examples. The upcoming one with JJ Feild as Mr Osborne springs to mind, but I won't pass any judgement on that until it's aired. I know this is somewhat shallow of me, but I had no objection whatsoever to Nigel Chapman's character, who was described as plain, being played by the drop dead gorgous Jonathan Firth!

But in some cases I think that it hasn't worked.

McGinty 19 Apr 10 at 9:17 a.m. GMT

MissQuin

More people complained about a devoted same sex couple holding hands, than a full on sexual scene between a man and woman. That's surely not ok?

No, it's not ok. But then some people have 'issues' that blind them to reality. Sadly neither you nor I will ever change that, bigotry will be around forever, but this is the 21st century and fortunately it is becoming slightly better for people to live their lives without interference from those who seem unable to grow up.

MissQuin 18 Apr 10 at 5:26 p.m. GMT

Like Lonewolf I found the Five Little Pigs episode, so convincingly acted by Toby Stephens that I can completely forgive the producers for that too. It wasn't done a sleazy, gratuitous way.

I just think people can be unfair in internet reviews complaining about the couple in Murder Is Announced and others. I mean it's the plotlines that are the most important thing and there's been worse changes like in Nazis every corner. More people complained about a devoted same sex couple holding hands, than a full on sexual scene between a man and woman. That's surely not ok?

Lone_Wolf 18 Apr 10 at 5:19 p.m. GMT

"I am totally confused, Lone Wolf. What do you mean by 'Death of The Author and all that'?"

"Death of the Author" is a literary theory that states that the author's motivations and interpretations of his own work shouldn't hold more weight then interpretations of any other reader - that the author (figuratively) ceases to exist after writing the last word in his book. Under that theory, you may say that while AC may've not considered the ladies from Аnnounсеd as gay, it shouldn't have any bearing when talking about their sexuality.

That theory can lead to productive discussions, though I guess it's possible sometimes to go overboard with it.

I confess I actually liked the "gay change" in Fivе Littlе Рigs, but that's the only added gay storyline I liked. In majority of cases, all that changed sexuality stuff seems to be just added for cheap sensationalism.

MissQuin 18 Apr 10 at 5:10 p.m. GMT

No I'm not condoning producers to change the sexuality of characters. It's just certain ones that might be gay, I think it's acceptable that they could be portryed as so. I thought I'd just ask what others thought. A good old debate won't hurt (I hope). The producers surely don't read this forum? Or else they wouldn't have done what they did the the adapts. If lots of people say "I'm not watching Poirot again because of added gay characters" the story writers would realise ratings would drop.

Mr Pye is in The Moving Finger.

Mr Hardiman and Bernard Parker in the Poirot short story, The Double Clue.

I never would have thought about characters sexuality, as it's not part of AC plots. But when I looked up reviews for episodes, the point that seemed the sorest was any characters who are gay. I mean I liked Cards On The Table (I'll be condemeed now) but there was too many added storylines which weren't in with the time period. There was even a photographer who found Poirot handsome!!!!

Tommy_A_Jones 18 Apr 10 at 3:41 p.m. GMT

I am totally confused, Lone Wolf What do you mean by 'Death of The Author and all that'? and Miss Quin can you explain why Mr Hardiman is Mr Pye please and go_leafs what do you mean by 'Reading them in a modern context does the trick' and why is the sexuality of Characters so important anyway, the ACs are not soaps, debates like this can only encourage Producers to make silly changes IMHO

MissQuin 18 Apr 10 at 1:15 p.m. GMT

Tommy It's Mr Bernard Parker who I think might be gay, not Parker Pyne. Poirot asks Mr Hardman who is Mr Parker and the question embasses him alot. We have to work out why.

"Mr Bernard Parker was at home. We found him reclining on some cushions, clad in an amazing dressing-gown of orange and purple. I have seldom taken a greater dislike to anyone than I did to this particular young man with his white, effeminate face and effected lisping speech"

Lone_Wolf 18 Apr 10 at 12:30 p.m. GMT

Death of the Author and all that.

go_leafs_nation 18 Apr 10 at 12:12 p.m. GMT

I think it's also quite possible that AC never intended for people to consider certain characters homosexual, but reading it from a modern viewpoint does the trick.

Tommy_A_Jones 17 Apr 10 at 5:03 p.m. GMT

It states quite heavily that Hinch and Murgatroyed are Gay without actually spelling it out, I didn't realise Parker Pyne was and can't remember who Amy and Mr Pye are. When Agatha Christie started Writing Homosexuality was an Offence and alot of Older peopple still don't like the idea of Homosexuality and if they enjoy Agatha Christie's work in Blisssful Ignorance why should they have their enjoyment ruined by being made to confront issues they would rather not tackle especially if the Character inn the book isn't Gay. I agree changing Murderers is a step too far. I don't have a problem with Japp, Hastings and Miss Lemon being added to Adaptations but I do think Omitting them or Battle, Race and Spence is a Big Mistake and one which I hope is repeated seldomely.

MissQuin 17 Apr 10 at 1:51 p.m. GMT

When you have some characters like Mr Pye, Amy and Hinch and Mr Parker in the Double clue, their sexuality is ambiguous. It's never actually stated, but it's up to the reader to decide...  But is it ok to have them portrayed as homosexal? I think in those cases, it can be perfectly acceptable, if it doesn't detract from the main plot. (note McEwan Moving Finger) In Murder is Anounced adapts it works fine.

I think Third Girl is good example of changes that had to be made.  Switching the book's time period of 1960's to 1930's meant they had to change fashions, peoples ways of talking, behaviour.

All the points GKC listed are good ones. Some characters have to be edited out. It must be hard for screenwriters to choose in some books.

It's easier for me to see what changes are inappropriate- changing the murderer, is one that I think nealy all fans will agree on being unacceptable.

I love Japp, Hastings and Miss Lemon. I dont mind them added to the hour long adapts, but in the feature lengths they weren't always needed.

Tommy_A_Jones 03 Sep 09 at 10:57 a.m. GMT

I hadn't thought of it that way go_leafs but I think you are right about leaving Pauline Moran, Hugh Fraser and Philip Jackson off screen unless their Characters appear in the Books, although I liked the use of them in Evil Under The Sun.  

Lone_Wolf 02 Sep 09 at 4:17 a.m. GMT

Personally, I think that original AC novels contained perfect balance between books with Hastings and co. and books without them. I'm not a fan of adding or removing them, in general.

go_leafs_nation 01 Sep 09 at 3:06 p.m. GMT

I didn't mind the exclusion of Miss Lemon in Third Girl. First off, we have Georges now. Second off, she was only in 3 pages in the first place. Since there are still several non-Hastings/Lemon/Japp novels to film, it's wiser to keep Pauline Moran, Hugh Fraser, and Philip Jackson offscreen when their characters appeared in cameos in the book.

Bundle_ 01 Sep 09 at 2:16 p.m. GMT

I think Go leafs is highlighting AC's books and putting emphasis on certain words i.e. feel :-).

Sometimes I really don't mind Miss Lemon in a lot of the early adaptations b/c it would seem plausible for Poirot to use her for certain cases, and after all she is his secretary - you would expect to see her regularly. But other times it's a bit much: I mean goodness, does she ever get a day off!?!? But for Japp (even though I like him very much) to be the only chief, detective, what have you, to be involved in every single case that Poirot is involved w/ is beyond a coincidence! I mean, how many times can you use the excuse of "What are you doing here Poirot?" It gets old after a while. And his constant appearance makes the mysteries feel less real. As for Hastings, well he is Poirot's partner in crime so it makes much more sense for him to make more appearances than Japp. But at the same time, sometimes it ceases to be a treat to see Hastings.

I'm probably sounding really harsh here. But it is only because I am so keen on adaptations staying faithful to novels. I really do adore Japp, Hastings and Miss Lemon. I guess what I am trying to say is-is that there constant appearance is too much of a good thing!

Tommy_A_Jones 01 Sep 09 at 1:18 p.m. GMT

I don't mind if Japp, Hastings and Miss Lemon are in Adaptations they shouldn't be in, I do object them not being in when they should be (Third Girl) and Hope Japp and Hastings are in The Big Four, I think it is a pity they did away with the Signature Tune which was used in the Hour-long Series and ABC (And probably more but I can't remember), The New feel of the series took a bit of getting used to but the new feel doesn't spoil my enjoyment and in the case of Third Girl, appropriate as that is a heavier book and suits the style, I don't see your point about Poirot being more like Jesica Fletcher lately and if I did I wouldn't mind as I like Murder She Wrote, I agree there would be no place for Japp or Miss Lemon in Cat Among The Pigeons but could have seen Hastings in After The Funeral - He could be an Executor of the Will but I suppose that would have made it too much Like Murder She Wrote for you, I can't comment on Murder in Mesopotamia as I haven't read it but agree with you with Evil Under The Sun, By the Way, What do you make Key words Darker? 

go_leafs_nation 31 Aug 09 at 7:16 p.m. GMT

After seeing The Murder of Roger Ackroyd and Hercule Poirot's Christmas, I stopped supporting the appearances of Japp, Hastings, and Miss Lemon when they did not appear. Sure, it worked well in the short story adaptations (How much fun are Sherlock Holmes short stories without Dr. Watson? Holmes himself narrates one or two, and I found it rather dull.), but not in the feature films.

I love the feel of the new Poirot. It is much darker, more serious, and more of a detective film in the first place (although, recently, Poirot has turned into Jessica Fletcher, conjuring accusations out of nowhere, while the guilty party conveniently confesses or commits suicide- refer to Appointment With Death). Miss Lemon and Japp would be out of place in Cat Among the Pigeons, for instance. Hastings did nothing but gape stupidly in Murder in Mesopotamia. I'd love to see them return in Curtain, The Big Four, and other stories that featured them in the first place. But rewriting stories just for the sake of Poirot's camaraderie is pointless, and I find it ineffective nine times out of ten. The best adaptation that includes them (when they weren't in the novel) is Evil Under the Sun.

Tommy_A_Jones 29 Aug 09 at 3:14 p.m. GMT

I thought I had commented on this topic but obviously not, I think that Adding Japp, Hastings orf Miss Lemon is probably not too bad as they are great Characters and changing bits to avoid offence like the poem in ATTWN is a good idea but changing Plot's and Motives and changing Characters and altering personalities is really stupid and shouldn't be done although I can see how TMORA could have been done properly I like the way it was done.

Britain hasn't seen 'The Clocks' yet but I loved the book and if it has been Changed Drastically I think it is a real shame and I will be Gutted, the only thing I can see wrong with it is that it didn't really need Poirot, although I enjoyed his partcipation I would have liked it if Colin and Hardcastle had solved it themselves, In that respect it reminded me of The Moving Finger, it would have been nice if MM hadn't have been in it and Gerry and Suot Burton had solved it themselves. 

Bundle_ 29 Aug 09 at 12:37 p.m. GMT

If a story like The Clocks is boring then I think the screenwriters could spice up certain scenes in the book w/o altering the overall plot - so I still think it should be faithful.

And I agree w/ you in all of your scenarios but #6, GKC. Remember "One Two Buckle My Shoe" w/ Suchet? That was probably one of the hardest of the AC books to film yet it still stayed almost completely faithful to the novel while still being very entertaining. So it can be done I just think some of the screen writers choose to put their own spin on things.

~Bundle a.k.a TheMole

Frndorfoe 29 Aug 09 at 5:27 a.m. GMT

You're welcome, GKCfan! To Boomcoach, about the politically correct changes, I never really even notice these remarks in the books of Christie or any of other non-contemporary writers because these remarks often reflect how most people felt in those times and all that seems too far away in time to me to be bothered about them. I'm sure some of these writers didn't even feel the same way about these things.  Unless it is blatant racism on the part of the writer or that kind of language is used by a present-day writer in a story set in contemporary times (which reflects the writer's own racism), I don't think it really matters. Times change and people's opinion about what is acceptable changes with it. Besides we must remember it is not Christie herself who is saying these things, some of her characters are and most of the times these kinds of characters are not even that important or are mere caricatures.

Boomcoach 28 Aug 09 at 6:44 p.m. GMT

I think that time constraint is the most acceptable reason to make changes.  THis can include scenes and/or characters.  In the Suchet version of Roger Ackroyd, they dropped one of my favorite characters (Major Blunt).  Even though he is a favorite of mine, dropping him altered the story very little, but saved time.  (Unfortunately, they made other changes which were less benign.)

I also don't mind some politically correct changes.  I really don't need to hear Mediterraneans and South Americans being referred to as "dagos" to enjoy Christie.

Other than these, and the second is rarely needed, I dislike changes for almost any other reason.

Lone_Wolf 28 Aug 09 at 5:19 p.m. GMT

The ratio of OK/bad modifications I saw in all (not only AC's) movies based on books is 20/80 percent. Meaning that while sometimes modifications are acceptable because is corrects some bad things in the original material, sometimes they are acceptable just because of change of presentation, but in general, the adapters need to control their creative urges a bit.

GKCfan 28 Aug 09 at 5:15 p.m. GMT

Thank you, Frndorfoe!  That's very kind of you!

Frndorfoe 28 Aug 09 at 6:35 a.m. GMT

Yes, GKCfan. I agree with you completely. But as far as Agatha Christie's works go, except for the points about time constraints and expenses make something too costly to film, most of the other points are not applicable. I don't believe Christie ever wrote anything that was too confusing and complex. None of her books seem (at least to me) to contain scenes that may no longer work for some reason or accusations of crimes against real people in a fictionalized way. I also agree with you on the last point. Sometimes the storyline may not work. But as you so rightly have said "what screenwriters come up with as replacements often is worse". So, while I totally agree with you, I still think changing Agatha Christie's plotlines or characters or motives without any valid reasons, such as cost or time constraints, is just unacceptable. BTW, GKCfan, I really like reading your posts. They are informative but at the same time enjoyable. You put things very precisely. I appreciate that. Most people these days are so random in the way they speak or write!

go_leafs_nation 27 Aug 09 at 8:06 p.m. GMT

GKCfan basically summed my thoughts up completely and left me nothing to add.

GKCfan 27 Aug 09 at 7:58 p.m. GMT

6)The storyline just doesn't work.  This is the most subjective one.  It is true that some things work great in a book but not on screen, but what screenwriters come up with as replacements often is worse.

GKCfan 27 Aug 09 at 7:33 p.m. GMT

I think that changes are perfectly acceptable under certain circumstances:

1)Time constraints.

2)A storyline is so complex it would be confusing (Christie herself stressed the importance of simplification).

3)A scene no longer works for various reasons (For example, many books being adapted today with scenes at the World Trade Center have reworked these scenes in light of 9/11.  This example doesn't have anything to do with Christie, but you get the idea.)

4)Expenses make something too costly to film.

5)Some living person might somehow be hurt or slandered due to the original plot.  (This may not affect Christie, but many mysteries have fictionalized crimes to accuse thinly veiled real-life people of real crimes, but evidence later came to light proving the innocence of the targeted persons.)