Have Your Say

Television and Film

Talk about Christie TV and Film here

Hallowe'en Party Adapt. News!

shanty_sleuth 27 Oct 09 at 8:25 p.m. GMT

http://www.itvmedia.co.uk/inside-itv/itv-news/david-suchet-and-zoe-wanamaker-reunite-in-the-halloween-party

What is everyone's initial reaction? Who else is excited?

Login or register to add posts and reply

89 replies

Reverse order

Tommy_A_Jones 23 Jan 10 at 4:02 p.m. GMT

No Spence? I am very dissapointed, he is one of the best things about the books, he in my view makes up for rall that waffle about Madness.

go_leafs_nation 23 Jan 10 at 3:20 p.m. GMT

Compared to past atrocities, the change is laughable. I love Spence myself (and am an unreasonable admirer of Hallowe'en Party, despite its flaws), but with Mark Gatiss writing the screenplay, I know it's in good hands. He wrote a very good adaptation of Cat Among the Pigeons, and it was at the same time a very entertaining movie.

MzLemon 23 Jan 10 at 12:42 a.m. GMT

I'm disappointed.  No Superintendent Harold Spence?  Why do they keep changing the original books?

Tommy_A_Jones 14 Dec 09 at 1:18 p.m. GMT

It has been ages since I last put as post on this thread and I think IT IS important that Characters shouldn't have trheir sexuality cchanged in Adaptations, all it does is de-legitimizes (If there is suchy a word) the wholew process of Adaptatingh a Book

spypsy 14 Dec 09 at 1:05 a.m. GMT

Captain Hastings MUST come back for some of the next episodes...

go_leafs_nation 20 Nov 09 at 3:34 a.m. GMT

For my part, I compiled some of the changes we've seen in Marple to show just how far from AC's stories the series has strayed. It sounds more like a subpar modern detective novel (I shiver at the thought).

S_Sigerson 20 Nov 09 at 3:26 a.m. GMT

Actually, I was being completely serious when I made that comment. 

go_leafs_nation 20 Nov 09 at 3:02 a.m. GMT

Allow me to point out that your latest comment was far more mocking than mine. I believe I've made my point and reasoning fairly clear more than once, so I won't go over the same ground.

While I've spent much time lately talking about the movies' flaws, I enjoyed most of them.

And I disagree while agreeing. Yes, a killer with a passive face is frightening. But insane killers are far more frightening. By that, I don't mean they foam at the mouth, impale people in original ways, and yell incomprehensibly. Look at real-life murder cases, and it is always the maniac who is most disturbing. The Zodiac Killer, Jack the Ripper, certain 'medical murderers' (Dr. Cream was a particularly disturbing killer); heck, let's throw in the Marquise de Brinvilliers and her lover Sainte-Croix. If these people are frightening enough in real life, why can't insanity be an acceptable motive in fiction? I contend that it is a smashing motive; read Sayers' Gaudy Night, Carr's Poison in Jest, or Queen's Cat of Many Tails; you won't get me blabbering any more hints to their solutions- the fact that the criminal must be insane is fairly obvious in each. And heck, what about the killer in The Hollow? After the Funeral? Mrs. McGinty's Dead? The Moving Finger? They're all insane to one degree or another, and these are among Christie's finest.

Insanity can be seen as a cop-out, but you can't lay down strict rules for a mystery. The best ones smash rules to bits and dance on their remains. The Murder of Roger Ackroyd is almost a textbook for mysteries of such cunning and ingenuity. I can barely hold back from mentioning a Carr that breaks one of the most fundamental rules in fair play, yet remains completely fair while doing so.

S_Sigerson 20 Nov 09 at 2:21 a.m. GMT

If you did not have a problem with Tuppence’s drinking in By The Pricking of My Thumbs, why bring it up at all and in such a mocking tone. After reading your messages I got the impression that you were unhappy with most (if not all) of the television adaptations.   

No, it’s hardly a fair ratio. 99.99999999% of the time the murderer is heterosexual and .000000000000001% of the time the murderer is homosexual. All the heterosexuals should take up this injustice with a letter writing campaign.

S_Sigerson 20 Nov 09 at 2:20 a.m. GMT

In Death on the Nile, we see Simon Doyle get shot in the knee, so how could he possible have committed the murder? Yet, he did commit the murder.

For the U.S. edition of Three Act Tragedy (U.S. title Three Acts) the motive was changed. Robert Barnard (a British mystery writer and an expert on Agatha Christie) felt the change damaged the plot. I agree and understand why. None of what is considered Agatha Christie’s best novels have insanity as the motive.

Insane maniacs roaming the village streets, enjoying themselves while hunting for prey may work in horror films, such as Friday the 13th, but have no place in an Agatha Christie mystery. With her you expect something a little more civilized, a little more subtle and a little more creative. She spent hours and hours working out intricate plots worthy of a better motive then simply – the person was insane. And yes, I do not think Murder is East is one of her finest books. Nonetheless, there are some fine points to the book. And I did enjoy reading it. 

Actually, the most frightening killers are ones with passive blank faces. You never really see them, let alone as a threat. And would never think someone who looks so innocuous could commit such a heinous crime, such as murder.

ITV doesn’t generate the controversy; it’s people who object to certain aspects or changes in or done to television adaptations who create the controversy. These objections are sometimes based on personal biases and prejudices; other times based on illogical reasoning. Why do people get bent out of shape when two women kiss, yet don't drop a stitch while someone is having their head bashed in.    

Maybe the vicar’s watch stopped and he lost track of time. Had he lived he would have been late for church.     

go_leafs_nation 19 Nov 09 at 10:54 p.m. GMT

If anything, ITV knows what they're doing: generating controversy spikes up ratings. It's rather sad to see them stoop to such a level, though. Mess around with Raymond Chandler if you like (the recent alterations feel more at home with his style anyhow); his books could use a bit of tweaking- I'd particularly like to know who on earth killed the blooming chauffer in The Big Sleep.

I actually had no problem with Tuppence's alcoholism. I found By The Pricking of My Thumbs rather well-done, actually, and consider it better than the more-praised French adaptation, because of its reproduction of the story's atmosphere. That, and June Whitfield stole the show. I simply threw that in because it hardly sounds like Agatha Christie on paper. The motive in Murder is Easy is the most disturbing since Appointment With Death's subplot over child abuse. Both disturbing scenarios, yes. Neither improve on the original book.

And certainly, the vicar is welcome to a hobby. But the scene is cut in such a way that the death and the sermon seem to be taking place at the same time. (You hear the bell tolling at one point, for instance, which should've immediately gotten him hopping to the church.) The audience is never told that he died at any other time, which is why I found this emerging as silly.

But while I heavily disliked the plot changes in Murder is Easy, I enjoyed the show overall, mainly because of the high production values for everything else (although I found the actor playing the murderer the weakest in a strong cast). The only film I can truly say I despised in Series 4 is Why Didn't They Ask Evans?, for reasons that are obvious. It was quite simply the worst film since The Sittaford Mystery.

go_leafs_nation 19 Nov 09 at 10:52 p.m. GMT

The COTT subplot with the other homosexual subplot was a waste of time. The first time I saw it (as well as my sister, uncle, and cousin), we all saw the dagger clearly protruding from Shaitana. When they went on to include Wheeler as a suspect, we all agreed it was pointless. AC was a master at misdirection, but it was her ingenuity above all that makes her stories worth reading. Replacing this and rewriting stories that drastically makes a product that couldn't be pitched without her name stuck on the label.

As for Murder is Easy, I felt no sympathy for the killer at all. That's rather shocking, considering how easy it is to make me sympathise. Partly due to the poor acting (the murderer was the weakest of a strong cast, I found), and partly due to the now twisted backstory, I found myself infuriated by her, and bored more than anything by the complicated background. The motive is simple and the revelation of the killer is far more disturbing in the book. The killer simply wanted to kill their victims, their ultimate goal being revenge, but enjoying the deaths along the way. I get more of a chill reading about the killer pushing a boy to his death from a window than watching the killer wander around with a blank face and altogether too much of a surrupy-sweet note in her voice.

I didn't consider Mr. Pye of The Moving Finger gay; he struck me as eccentric. But even if we include him, that leaves us with one gay suspect, one gay victim, and several gay murderers. Hardly a fair ratio. I can see why Roberts' motive is a strong one, but the book's slightly simpler one was far stronger. After all, it is my favourite AC, and a fellow should be willing to defend his prejudices.

S_Sigerson 19 Nov 09 at 5:56 p.m. GMT

Some people may consider, a husband who kills his wife to marry the governess; a father who attempts murder his own child; a woman who murders a young girl when the young girl meets a man and decides to get married; a wife who tries to frame her husband for murder, as twisted. You find all these scenarios and then some in Agatha Christie’s stories. Granted, Murder is Easy; like the more recent Poirots is a little darker compared to previous television adaptations of Agatha Christie’s work; however, they have always (or mostly) dealt with adultery, murder out of jealous, murder for money.....

S_Sigerson 19 Nov 09 at 5:29 p.m. GMT

Abortions are performed today, just like they were in the 1950s. Whether you agree with it or not it doesn't change that fact.       

S_Sigerson 19 Nov 09 at 5:11 p.m. GMT

Besides, does it really matter there are homosexuals in the stories or television adaptations? You find homosexuals who are victims (Miss. Murgatroyd in A Murder is Announced), who are suspects (Mr. Pyre in The Moving Finger) and who are murderers (Dr. Roberts in Cards on the Table). Does anyone really care? Why was it a shock to a have a murderer who happened to be a homosexual in The Body in the Library? What was so shocking, the fact they were a homosexual or the fact they were a murderer? And so what if Tuppence in the television adaptation, By Pricking of My Thumbs, had a drinking problem. Life is difficult sometime. None of us are infallible. Adding a bit of realism in no way denigrates Agatha Christie’s stories. If anything, it improves the stories.

S_Sigerson 19 Nov 09 at 5:11 p.m. GMT

What, a vicar is not allowed to have a hobby? And what’s wrong with beekeeping?  The reason the vicar was late for service was he was dead by then. Not really a problem unless you were looking forward to his sermon. 

One can argue the changed motive in the television adaptation, Cards on the Table, is stronger because homosexuality was illegal in Great Britain in the 1930s. Not only could Dr. Roberts be struck off the medical registry for sleeping with one of his patients, but he could go to prison for sleeping with a male patient (Mr. Craddock). With the motive in the book, Dr. Roberts medical license would be revoked in Great Britain, but he would not have gone to prison. When the book was original written (in the 1930s), the readers of that time period probably thought this was a strong motive and it still is today. However,  would today’s audience by it? I am not so sure. Add on, going to prison and more than likely they would accept the motive. We are talking about making changes that make the finished product better or stronger. And you do take into consideration the audience. Agatha Christie did when she adapted her books for the stage. As far as the homosexual subplot concerning another character, it was pure misdirection to lead suspicion away from the real murderer. Agatha Christie used misdirection all the time.  

S_Sigerson 19 Nov 09 at 5:01 p.m. GMT

This reply contains spoiler information. Show reply

I had a lot of sympathy for the murderer in Murder is Easy. She was raped by her brother, gets pregnant with his child, subsequently has his child and puts it up for adoption. In addition, she kills her own brother out of fear he would continue to rape her. Now, that at least to me, is pretty horrendous. I can’t imagine what the poor girl went through. I can understand why she did what she did to stop the secret from coming out.  Insanity is somewhat of cop out because it’s not rational and definitely not as strong as a secret most of us would find disturbing to say the least.  

go_leafs_nation 19 Nov 09 at 11:06 a.m. GMT

I consider the change in motive idiotic. Why isn't insanity a good enough motive for murder? Must we sit through and listen to a twisted story about abortion, etc, and why someone decided to exterminate half the village because of it? Instead of having a cozy, right-at-home village feel (ideal for Miss Marple), this feels more like a Tommy and Tuppence story with a very very very aged Tuppence and a Tommy who's kicked the bucket. I've already mentioned the escalator murder (that turned out silly, unlike an episode of Poirot in which it worked- I forget what episode it was at the moment) and the problem with the vicar's beekeeping. The murders in the book simply were much more clever and disturbing because of the killer's insanity. Here [SPOILER] she is a simpering, snivelling little brat whom I wanted to strangle [END OF SPOILER].

I still maintain that making a homosexual the killer precisely because they're homosexual is rather disgusting. If the motive was something else, I might let it slide. The Body in the Library got away with this because the motive was money; but this did nothing to help the original story. COTT's motive was the killer's homosexuality throughout. The original motive was clever enough; why replace it? The first time the twist occurs, it's a shock. The second time, I raised an eyebrow. By the third time, I was trying to figure out why the obsession with homosexuality in Agatha Christie.

S_Sigerson 19 Nov 09 at 7:49 a.m. GMT

I was critical of Why Didn’t They Ask Evans? I thought the first two Miss. Marples that aired on PBS, A Pocket for of Rye (I liked the fact they kept the ending from the book) and Murder is Easy (the change in motive made the plot stronger), were okay. I do question how much longer Miss. Marple can be set in the 1950's, without running out of new ideas or trying so hard to be different from previous ones that you run the risk of going off the rails.

I enjoy one British comedy; however, I found towards the end of its run, the shows were not as good or as funny, compared to earlier shows. 

What plot changes in Murder is Easy, do you consider idiotic?  

S_Sigerson 19 Nov 09 at 7:42 a.m. GMT

The ending in the Joan Hickson version is also better, you have three elderly ladies sitting on a sofa watching a film of their younger selves in happier times. Probably thinking about departed friends and loved ones. I believe they call that pathos.