My initial reaction? YEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEESSSS!!!

I'm so excited! This looks like it'll be a faithful adaptation, too! Mark Gatiss did a fantastic job with Cat Among the Pigeons, and I'm so happy he's on board! And I'm so glad that Zoe Wanamaker is going to be back!

Thanks for posting this, shanty!

I'm excited for this too. And I have to say that for the most part I am happy w/ the cast. I'm particularly happy to see that Julian Rhind-Tutt will be in it, I love him! :0)

Fortunately for me, since I'm on the Internet, no one can see that I'm currently doing a little dance of joy and excitement. 

I see one little change... Joyce's mother is now her stepmother... could this be to make her a more viable suspect?

How I would love to be able to see that dance, GKCfan!! It certainly sounds intriguing, but, at the risk of sounding rather dull, I will reserve judgement until I've actually seen it. I always go through hell when a new adaptation is aired as I face the dilemma whether to watch or not as some I have found so disappointing. Admittedly, this is truer of the Marples than the Poirots but I always approach them with a little bit of fear gripping my heart in case a well loved story is taken apart in front of my eyes.

Yes, I know. I sound a miserable sod. I should just lighten up and enjoy them. GKCfan, I need to learn your dance and introduce more joy into my life! The thing is, I really love Hallowe'en Party and want to see it done well. Fingers crossed..

By the way, What's all this with Rowenna Drake having a son and daughter? Did the pages containing these characters fall out of my copy?

omg yes! MARK! do it again!

Does anyone know when it will be screened?

As far as I am aware, it is still being filmed so I can't imagine it will air anytime soon. Something to look forward to in 2010, I guess!

expect UK airdate 31.10.2010.

Its a Sunday and Halloween.

Perfect sense you are talking there, wolfbridge!

Not long to wait then....

So does that mean No Poirot for this year for Britain?

I'm not sure, Tommy. I've just been browsing the ITV site for news on an adaptations and linked to an article about the forthcoming adaptations of The Clocks, Three Act Tragedy and a plan to make Murder on the Orient Express. I'm sure everyone out there already knew about these up and coming productions, but it was news to me as I'm never really in touch with what goes on in TV land. This article was from May 09 so they may have already filmed some of them and have them in post-production. If anyone know anything about them, let me know please!

I did read the description of the plot they have 'adapted' for the clocks. It features a certain Colin Race instead of our old friend Colin Lamb, so the scriptwriters have obviously decided that having Battle as a father isn't much cop and have foisted a family on Johnny Race instead. I'm already getting that nervous, frightened-of-what-else-they-have-messed-with feeling in the pit of my stomach. I DREAD to think what they have done to the others they are working on.

I do so love The Clocks. Why can't they leave these things alone...

I like you LOVE The CLOCKS they obviously pulled out The Chapter where Colin sses Poirot and mentions his Father isn't in the same line as him, as IO have said up until then it can be thought that Race is Colin's Father, I think changeing names are really silly and Petty alterations, I thinkl I read when browsing Recent Posts someone said the writers 'Need' to put their mark on the Adaptations, which in my view is unfair, They don't 'Need' to put their mark on the Adaptations they choose to, feeling they 'Need' to is not only petty but silly and hurtful to True fans, I didn't go into the post on Recent posts so I might be wrong but if I am right, then the writers are petty and should go and play with somneone else's work or just right drama's that aren't based on books like the Hospital ones which are pointless anyway. 

Those 2 books I have are;

Agatha Christie's Poirot and Christie in Four Acts

Why are they "messing about" with it? Quite simply: it's a very flawed book. It has a rambling nature and AC's explanation to the problem of the clocks is dull. The reason I loved it when I read it was because of the clocks themselves; it becomes quite maddening as you try figuring out the sinister meaning. The resolution of that mystery is not very fair or fun, and I've grown to like the book far less. (The corpse in Ellery Queen's The Chinese Orange Mystery is wearing its clothes backwards. Just thought I'd mention that. Maddening clues like that are priceless.) I still like it, though, but I think it can be polished up before adapting. Not a la Cards on the Table, mind you...

Puffinjill,

Three Act Tragedy and The Clocks have been filmed, Hallowe'en Party should have wraped up production this week and will be in post-production. Murder on the Orient Express will be filmed soon.

Those 4 Movies will air in 2010 internationally and sure sometime on ITV1.

Theres Appointment with Death leftover for airing on ITV1 sometime soon :)

Thank you, Wolfbridge. I've not actually watched many of the adaptations over the last couple of years and have fallen a little out of touch of where ITV are with them. I need to work out which ones I have missed and add them to the DVD's I have already got.

I shall watch out for Appointment with Death as it is my favourite book. But I should perhaps know better, as the reason I've steered clear of some adaptations was the way they had started to mess around too much with the plot and characterisations for my liking, and therefore will probably find too much fault with this one too.

But thanks for your help!

Appointment with Death is already released on DVD, so you might buy the newest Collection.

I shall have to. I need to sit down and work out which ones I am missing from the DVD's I already have and also which ones I actually haven't seen yet. Then anything missing can be carefully and skillfully dropped into random conversations around Christmastime with, hopefully, a pleasing result come Christmas morning!

I was going to make a comment about finding a small Belgian in my stocking but wasn't sure it was in the right taste....

Regarding the name change from "Colin Lamb" to "Colin Race," most Chirsitie scholars agree that Colin's dad is Supt. Battle because of various clues (we know that Colin's dad is a police superintendent who has worked with Poirot, for example).  Remember, so far in the Poirot television series with David Suchet, we haven't met Supt. Battle, since he was replaced by a very different character in Cards on the Table.  Race was deleted from Cards too, but since we saw him in Death on the Nile, Poirot TV watchers can feel some sort of connection.

Puffinjill

Then anything missing can be carefully and skillfully dropped into random conversations around Christmastime with, hopefully, a pleasing result come Christmas morning!

I'm really looking forward to Christmas!!

I suppose that makes sense GKCfan although I still think it is a stupid and pointyless alteration and (I might sound too dramatic here) I think it is a hurtful to purists even if they aren't total purists like me. thanyou GKC and wolfbridge for the information, I will still read Halloween Party when I have finished my book so I can brush myself up on the details.

I'm still with you on this one Tommy. I think it's a pointless alteration to make. Knowing who Colin's father is doesn't really add much to the plot, except a feeling of continuation and a good device for AC to show the passing of time.

Having said that, I can hear people out there saying 'if it doesn't matter who his father is, why should it matter if they change the name?' Well, somehow it just does as it just smacks of more interference by the scriptwriters to change things into the way THEY want them, regardless of what AC's intentions were. Plus, it just seems to show a lack of respect to the true lovers of the books. Surely, we (I think I can class myself as one) are the core of their viewing audience, but, seemingly, we can be overlooked as those who know less about AC are reeled in.

Actually, if they want a audience less in the know, thats fine, but then why choose to use the name 'Race' instead as these viewers won't get the link?

I KNOW I'm turning a mole-hill into a mountain. Beg pardon.

I don't care for The Clocks (No offence taken I hope) and if I wasn't such a purist when it comes to AC's plots being portayed I wouldn't mind them making a lot of changes to it. Having said that, hopefully they aren't changing too much about the book, I think for them to make it exciting they need to over emphasize certain scenes. But all in all it really should be about staying truthful to Agatha's name/work, and pleasing the TRUE Christie fans like us instead of the regular viewers.

Hear. hear!! I know the true point is making sure the dramas we get  have high production values and are of a high standard. Shoddily made adaptations would be disrespectful to AC and her readership. But I still cling to the point that if AC's plots/characters have fascinated, fooled and attracted millions of people for almost a century, why do these writers who create these adaptations feel they can do a better job than her?

And no offence, Bundle! I think we should all celebrate our differences as well as the opinions we share!

I agree with you totally Puffin, as a fellow Clocks lover but I would go slightly further than you do, If all ITV, Chorion, The Producers and others want is an Audience and don't have any intention in keeping ther right names of Characters WHY OH WHY by the rights to Agatha Christie's work at all and if you are going to change so much PLEASE! PLEASE! change the identity of the Killers so then it ios a surprise to people who are encourageds to read Agatha Christie's work after seeing the Adaptations because then the solution will be a nice surprise, keeping the same Killer but changeing opther bits mean there is no incentive whatsoever to read the books I would have thought or am I wrong?

Quite wrong, I'm afraid. When they've changed the killer thus far in Marple, the identity is different but the twist is the same. It'll make the book pretty boring for non-readers who've seen the adaptation. And half will be left wondering where the steamy sex scene disappeared to.

I don't understand your post go_leafs, Adding the Lesbian aspectr in Body In  The Library was just for the Lascivious parts of society and as they added that they should have changed the whole lot and said it was based very loosely on the book.

The Clocks flawed? Not at all. Granted, the business with the clocks is somewhat of a let down. However, overall this book is well written and a jolly good read.

As far as "messing about", I don't mind changes. I am realist, books are books and television adaptations are television adaptations. And today's audience is different than the audience of (let us say) the 1940's. What I do mind is poorly written scripts like the one for They Do It With Mirrors.        

I am looking forward to the television adaptations of The Clocks. I am curious to see what the writer does to solve the problem with the clocks. 

Well, here I disagree while agreeing. The Clocks is very flawed no matter how you look at it. It's a late Christie and tends to ramble. The explanation for the clocks is rather poor. But until the ending, it is still a rather fun book: it is at the solution where the thing falls apart. I've been very negative about the book lately, but I did enjoy it.

Of course, we've had a rather extensive debate as to changes in television adaptations. For my own part, I disagree with altering AC's plots as it's been done. Simplify if you must (which is often the case), but why do we need mysterious rubies, Nazis-in-disguise, and a lesson in picking locks? This isn't a Sylvester Stallone movie.

[continued]

I do have to disagree with you about They Do It With Mirrors. The edited version is far worse than the film in its entirety. But the entire version does very well with the elimination of an emotional distancing from the characters in the book. It introduces enough changes to keep it interesting, while remaining faithful to the work at its core. The murders are now far more cinematic and exciting: instead of two people shouting behind a closed door (cue the lazy music from the JH films), you get a full-out confrontation that's far more effective. Instead of a few people being found in a theatre, dead, the screenwriter finds a far more interesting way to bump them off. Sure, there are flaws, but I prefer these ones to the silly escalator murder in Murder is Easy. (I'm afraid my opinion on that is the same; having rewatched the clip several times, and your argument for it failed to convince me. Someone far lower down the escalator reacted quickly to the situation and tried grabbing her. Yet, when all's said and done, the murderer is the only person who walks RIGHT BESIDE the corpse- note that it's pretty much side-by-side, I wouldn't have minded so much if it was from a distance- and there's no one there! Did the quick-acting man disintegrate? He's suddenly disappeared. Sure, it takes a while for the mind to react, but he already reacted.)

I think it is one of the Poirot's that didn't need Poirot but as it did have him it needed the sup-plot with the Murder Mysteries, think it is appalling that Colin Lamb isn't in the Adaptation which I haven't seen it yet and I think alot of the books have one bit nwhich is a let-down like thge fact that not all of the |Foster children are in The Mirror Crack'd From Side To Side 

Colin IS in the adaptation, apparently, but he is now Colin Race so the sreenwriters have chosen to ignore Battle altogether and have suddenly decided to bestow a son on Colonel Race instead. I see no reason for this pointless change so I dread to think what elae they have done to the character!

I know that but as he has a different name I ignored it, I nagree a pointless and stupid alteration, If ITV did the same to other peoples work I wouldn't mind too much but they don't, Agatha Christioe was To successful for TV People who wouldn't know the meaning of the word faithful if it multiplied and grabbed them in a Bear-hug 

Ha, ha, ha!!!! Well said, my friend! Still, I expect they get paid a damned good whack for making up such nonsense too. As I work for peanuts now (thats how it feels. Don't tell my boss!) I could do the job of creating rubbish scripts for half the price! What do you think, Tommy? We couldn't make a worse job of it, could we?

I should we both could and we wouldn't annoy our friends on this site as wse would adapt them with integrity and show our nlove for the Characters, something that is missing from some of the ITV adaptations of ACs Work these days.

And perhaps we would all then shut up about other people's versions!! I expect, if anyone seriously did decided to write a screenplay, they would see what a heculian (no pun intended) task it is and then have some sympathy for those who do the job now! I just wish, like you Tommy and many others, they would just show a little more respect and integrity when doing so.

Yes, We might be worrying for nothing, The Clocks might be Brilliant but changing Colin's Surname looks like a bad sign to me but Anna Massey is well-cast

The Clocks will probably be half faithful. What I mean by that is that the idea of the book will be the same, the main characters will be there, the ending will be pretty similar to the book, and the scenery etc will also stay the same, but characters names will be changed, the ending will be slightly different, Poirot will be in it more (which is a plus imo). I see it being reminiscent to the way Suchet's version of Evil Under the Sun was done.

Again, not seen the Suchet version of Evil Under the Sun. I've missed the adaptations from the last couple of years, partly due to dread of how they would be and partly due to barely watching the TV and not being aware of when they were on. I'm trying to rectify that now but adding the DVD's to the collection of all the earlier series I have, so you will have be patient as I try to catch up with the rest of you. The last complete series I have seen is series 6 which includes Cards on the Table and Taken at the Flood. Having been disappointed at these (two great book that could have been done so much better, especially Cards), I lost a bit of interest in anything to follow.

Evil Under The Sun was amazing! I really recomend it!

I sense another topic coming on :0).

I preferred the Ustinov version of Evil Under the Sun (even though I don't care for Ustinov as Poirot) to Suchet's version. I think the former stayed true to the book, it was more exciting, and more emotional.

Suchet's version put Hastings and Japp and Lemon in, and none of them fit in there at all! I mean, why was Japp all the way down at Sandy Cove for, doesn't he have other cases in a closer jurisdiction? And Hastings accompanying Poirot doesn't work at all. And Poirot asking Miss Lemon to look up particulars doesn't make much sense. Why couldn't Japp commission Scotland Yard to do that? They would have more clout and get out more information than a secretary would.

The only thing I did like about it was the reconstructing of how the culprit(s) did it -- I think this part saved it from being a dreadful adapt -- I think it was exactly how AC had envisioned it. And I did like how Suchet delivered his knowledge, but then again, I also liked how Ustinov delivered his knowledge (good Poirot, or not).

I like both versions, It made perfect sense that Hastings should go down with Poiroit as Company considering he would have to put up with being put on a Healthy regime, he is a bit like a child and would have needed Hastings to accompany him and even now Police are seccondid to other areas so having Japp there wasn't so odd and perhaps Miss Lemon Making enquiries would hurry things up a bit and anyway when it isn't harmful a bit of lisence is fun and having Miss Lemon just completed the set, I think the ones with Japp but no Miss Lemon or Hastings look a bit bare although they are still good but I do love the Ustinov Version anbd Great Music too.

No, mon ami. There are 2 reasons why Hastings shouldn't have been w/ Poirot in Evil Under the Sun. The first: Hastings wasn't in the book. The second: Hastings wasn't the one w/ the health problem: it was Poirot.

There are 4 reasons why hew should have been in the book, the first he was in the book although I admit only very briefly so briefly infact I didn't remember it until I read wiki, the 2nd reason is as I said he is a bit of a child and needed someone to hold his hand and the 3rd, It didn't harm the Adaptation and 4th reason it is nice to have the Gang of 4 Together 

But Hastings wasn't w/ Poirot "helping" him solve the case. And Japp wasn't the active detective, and if my memory serves me correct then Miss Lemon didn't help w/ the case either. It would have been okay if the three of them were put in adapts in which they didn't belong some of the time, but they were in nearly every single one for a long time, and to me it then became too much of a good thing.

But Hastings almost never helped with the cases, he just added colour and so what if Japp wasn't the active Detective and Miss Lemon was an Information Gatherer, I think it all weorked very nicely, these weren't insulting or hurtful changes.

Oh dear, what have I started!! I shall certainly have to buy the CD so I can see for myself. Nearly bought it today but it was 25 quid and I couldn't quite run to that (it was the whole of last years series along with Third Girl, Appointment with Death and Mrs McGinty's Dead), so I will probably have to wait until after Christmas to give my opinion. I shall keep both of your views in mind.

Tommy_A_Jones

But Hastings almost never helped with the cases, he just added colour and so what if Japp wasn't the active Detective and Miss Lemon was an Information Gatherer, I think it all weorked very nicely, these weren't insulting or hurtful changes.

They got to be.

• Hercule Poirot's Christmas
• The Murder of Roger Ackroyd

Those were positively dreadful, especially due to having Japp around. They weren't in the book; they clutter the screen; their inclusion does nothing; it ruins the plot.

Hastings, Japp, and Lemon do not belong in books where they weren't in originally. On the contrary, their presence takes away from the movie. As for EUTS, it is the sole Poirot where I thought the inclusion of the trio was pulled off fairly well. It's far better than having Hastings accompany Poirot to Mesopotamia for some strange reason. What would've been next? Hastings was involved in the murder of Amyas Crale in Five Little Pigs? Miss Lemon replaces Mrs. Lorrimer in Cards on the Table? Japp replaces Monsieur Bouc in Murder on the Orient Express (Poirot! What are you doing here!)?

Just-- no. Fraser, Moran, and Jackson were great in their roles. Their characters don't belong in books outside of what AC wrote. Even Dumb Witness had a horrible Hastings role in the adaptation, despite his being (a good presence at that) in the original novel.

the point is, people keep missing them in the new movies - but they should not be in it.

instead of leaving them out earlier already, they decided to put them in and later surely found out that some of these movies did not work with Japp, Lemon and Hastings in it.

So finally after a hiatus they decided to go the right way.

Sadly there is one person here and on the imdb forums that always keeps nagging about it. Once the TV Viewer accepts that they are not in the storyline, they do not ask again for them. always bringing up this topic is making me really mad.

wolfbridge

Sadly there is one person here and on the imdb forums that always keeps nagging about it. Once the TV Viewer accepts that they are not in the storyline, they do not ask again for them. always bringing up this topic is making me really mad.

Same; especially on the IMDb boards, where I can post nothing, this topic tests my sanity.

Hastings and Japp in EUTS was over the top for me. I'm sorry but it ceases to be realistic when you have the same detective (Japp) available and on every single case that Poirot is involved in! I mean, I'm sure that's one of the many reasons that AC didn't keep using the same Scotland Yard detective in every book!

Lemon, Hastings and Japp were placed in the early ones I believe because seeing the four of them together is fun, I mean they do have interesting conversations, etc. etc. which I can appreciate, but it's flawed because it's not faithful to the books nor is it very realistic. Especially when you have Miss Lemon acting as not only Poirot's secretary but his maid as well!

Once in a blue moon w/ the three of them, okay, but in nearly every single adapt? It's so monotonus!

Tommy_A_Jones

But Hastings almost never helped with the cases, he just added colour and so what if Japp wasn't the active Detective and Miss Lemon was an Information Gatherer, I think it all weorked very nicely, these weren't insulting or hurtful changes.

I would agree except, again, Japp has been in too many adapts. It would be the same thing if they had used Colonel Race over and over again. And they aren't hurtful by any means, and they aren't insulting to the audience but I do think it is sort of insulting to AC's work as she hadn't used Hastings, Lemon, or Japp in nearly every single Poirot book.

I would think that it was obvious that if she wanted them in a ton of Poirot books then she would have added them.

But you're right Tommy, Hastings doesn't really assist Poirot so again why does he have to tag along in every single case?

Japp, Hastings and Miss Lemon don't tag along on every case, They weren't in Cat Among The Pigeons or 3rd Girl even though Miss Lemon should have been in that one and I am sure tthere are others that Japp and Hastings weren't in and rightly so. So Bundle youy are wrong Hastings doesn't tag along All the time in fact Philip Jackson, Hugh Fraser and Pauline Moran haven't been in it for ages but then the only time I have misdsed any of them is as I say Miss Lemon in Third Girl

If Colonel Race had been in more perhaps James Fox would have kept his Diary free for Cards On The Table and that would have given the writers lress excuse to make of it what they did and it would have been a better Adaptation and No Bundle I am not suggesting for one minute that they should have had Colonel Race in more Adaptations

That's because those are the most recent adaptations that took the right path and didn't bother including the trio. They should be back for the last series, which will have to include novels they were originally in (The Big Four, Curtain, Dead Man's Folly), but until then, they should keep out. Hastings has been exiled to Argentine, Miss Lemon is working for someone else, Japp is actually working on cases that don't bump him into Poirot every other time. And until we get to books they starred in, that's the end of the story.

Exciting is the last word I would use when discussing the latest version of They Do It with Mirrors. Quite the contrary, it was utterly ludicrous and the murder scenario – impossible to pull off. In other discussions, I’ve stated why this murder scenario is flawed. I will give yet another reason why it doesn’t work. Even if we accept Edgar was master ventriloquist (which was unfair to the audience because we never knew he had this hidden talent) it’s impossible to imitate someone else’s voice so perfectly that someone like Miss. Marple, who is intelligent and shrewd, wouldn’t notice the change (even a subtle one) in the voice. No - the scene in Joan Hickson version is believable, dramatic and most importantly – can be done. The ending in the Joan Hickson version is poignant and touching. You cannot say the same for the ending in the latest version. Overall the Joan Hickson version is by far a better television adaptation.  

The changes that were made to the latest television adaptation of They Do it With Mirrors were more than just simplifying the plot. And what was done does not pay homage to the book it was based on or the author. After watching it I doubt anyone would want to read the book it was based on. Whereas, after watching the television adaptation of Cards on the Table, I have no doubt that someone would want to read the book it were based on because the television adaptation of Cards on the Table is clever, entertaining and does pay homage to the Agatha Christie and her books.

To the casual viewer the escalator scene in Murder is Easy works. I could examine frame by frame most television adaptations and films and find minor inconsistencies. The relevant issue is, can someone be killed by being pushed down a flight of steps or pushed down an escalator or pushed in front of car? The answer is yes.  

You do have a point there. GoodFellas, for instance, throws continuity to the wind, but it is so engaging that unless you're hunting for inconsistencies, you don't notice. But this jumped painfully to my eyes in Murder is Easy. It came across as silly. A similar murder method was employed in an eppy of Poirot, and, I believe, it was done far better.

Although I guess we'll just have to differ on Mirrors, I'll have to emphatically disagree with Cards. By the end, it became dreadful. I was particularly annoyed by changing Despard's backstory with the Luxmores. It shatters a major theme in the novel to blazes. Problems with They Do It With Mirrors seem like a masterpiece compared to it. For instance, the theory that Wheeler did it is an obvious waste of time- you can see the dagger gleaming from Shaitana's chest before he approaches the body. Plus, the homosexual killer subplot got pretty boring after The Body in the Library. AC avoided issues like this in her books. How exactly does including them pay homage to her work? I was disgusted by the last 15-20 minutes, with the "one of the people in this room is a killer" scene. I've never rewatched that segment since. It is one of only a handful of movies that made me quite literally sick to the stomach (a class that includes movies from Jaws 2 to the 'old' Ordeal By Innocence).

Silly? Not at all. What's absurd is Lewis Serrocold in They Do it With Mirrors dressed up like a Native American.    

Sure, you already mentioned why that seemed out of character to you. I really didn't mind all that much, though. Besides, They Do It With Mirrors didn't have me ill in the washroom like certain other adaptations.

Another thing I found hard to swallow in Murder is Easy is at the very beginning with the bee murder. The vicar is late for the sermon. So why is he tending to his bees instead of hopping over to the church? Maybe I didn't catch it well, but it seemed to me that it was taking place at the same. It was cut that way, at any rate. Why did the vicar play beekeeper instead of doing his duties? It makes no sense.

At any rate, S_Sigerson, although we don't often agree, I do enjoy debating these things with you. You show great insight.

I am intrigued! I can't wait nowe to see They Do It With Mirrors I am not expecting too much as up to now it's my Least favourite Miss Marple

Go Leafs Nation, there is no need to be ingratiating. Three things I am leery of are: Greeks bearing gifts, people in general bearing  compliments and waiters bearing Pasta Carbonara.  

The latest version of They Did It with Mirrors just bored me, which is pretty hard to do. I am not difficult to please. Something has to be pretty bad for me not to be able to find some redeeming quality and find some reason to like it. 

Something of an entirely different nature makes me ill. 

I wasn't trying to be ingratiating in the least, S_Sigerson; those were my genuine thoughts, but I see why you might've thought so.

Perhaps being bored by Mirrors was due to seeing the edited version? PBS managed to butcher Nemesis up pretty badly (which took some doing) when they edited it. It got really disjointed, and fairly boring. I was surprised when I saw the unedited version on DVD later; it was actually far more interesting and engaging than when I'd seen the broadcast.

Still, manipulating the audience in mystery movies isn't unusual. Look at the (very silly) At Bertram's Hotel. Shots are different; instead of the killer calmly sipping some wine, they now glare viciously over the edge of it at their future victim. When the silly 'hands' explanation crops up (easily mistaken for a goof by the director, and quite ridiculous, IMO), Elvira (when it first occurs) merely steps forward with the gun; in the flashback, she fires the gun several times. No one called foul over that; They Do It With Mirrors accomplished what it set out to do and entertained me while being rather faithful. Besides, the confrontation was more engaging, I find. JH's version, although a success overall, was too static and 'lazy' for me. I like a bit of 'blood and thunder' in a mystery.

Plus, I'm a big supporter of Dominik Scherrer's music. I found his compositions for the series excellent yet again. When is a long-overdue CD of his work for the series going to be released? I'll be at the front of the line.

Faithful to the book it was based on? Not at all. Agatha Christie wrote a clever, well written and entertaining locked room murder mystery. Had this been a parody (a farce from beginning to end) it might have been enjoyable. However, mixing a serious murder mystery drama with elements of a farce doesn’t work. You either do one or the other. It’s not entertaining when you are expecting a serious drama and it turns out to be a cross between Monty Python and a B-rated film (for the most part I am referring to the script). Interjecting a little humor to lighten the mood is one thing; to turn it into an all out farce is quite another.      

Being faithful (a word I don’t care for, but at this moment I cannot think of a better word) to a work of fiction has less to do with making a carbon copy of the book for television and more to do with creating an end product that works in this type of medium and that captures what makes the book so good. With Agatha Christie it’s her plots and misdirection (which she excelled at). Incorporating these elements into the television adaptation is what really matters, at least in a serious adaptation.      

Major changes can be made and storylines altered. Kevin Elyot did it in the version of The Body in the Library with Geraldine McEwan. He captured the qualities that made the book such a great mystery, while at the same time adding a twist that Agatha Christie would have been proud of. Despite the switch in gender, you still have basically the same character from the book. The sample logic applies to one of the characters in Cards on the Table with the change of their sexual preference.    

I give up. Paying respect to Agatha by butchering her stories? If I'm not mistaken, it's the reason she became reluctant with film rights in the first place. Would she seriously be proud of characters being turned into gay and lesbian murders? As for the supposedly gay characters in her books, it's equally possible that she never had the slightest intention of having them come across that way; modern interpretation does the rest. After all, the word "lesbian" was used only once in A.C. (Hallowe'en Party).

While some of the best movies ever made have been only loosely based on books, there is practically no room to fool around with a mystery. What the writers have managed to do consistently is make the series campy. They Do It With Mirrors is The Godfather compared to the mushy Sittaford Mystery, ludicrous Sleeping Murder, or disturbingly twisted Murder is Easy. Are alcoholic detectives such an integral part to Christie?

I too realize that film is film and books are books. But what is the point of adapting an Agatha Christie if you'll change half the thing right away? AC's books are successes for their ingenuity. Changing her plots and abandoning this quality is like making Father Brown into a tough, gangster-fighting priest in modern-day New York City. It's truly absurd what they've managed to do with these beloved books.

(ct'd.)

As for They Do It With Mirrors, it's far from an effective locked-room murder. Flaws cripple the book, particularly the cardboard characters with whom it's difficult to symptahise.I still find it stunning that your comments on They Do It With Mirrors are scathing, yet you manage to praise the rather preposterous Murder is Easy.

Something is rotten in the state of Christieverse. 'Twas murder most foul, for a pointless, vague obsession with bringing things "up to date". For my part, you will find me sitting at home reading works of the Golden Age of detection. I have no interest in alcoholic detectives and simplistic maids tracking down homosexual murders, being flown under the banner of "based on the book by Agatha Christie". It isn't her work, and it's an utter disgrace. I'm not against alterations: I am against screenwriters deciding to throw in senseless new plotlines when they can calmly eliminate the far superior old ones with no qualms.

Would Agatha Christie really be proud that people are going about, cheerfully butchering her novels just to appeal to an audience that is used to explosions? Somehow, I doubt we're talking about the same person. Perhaps you're thinking of the wife of that mysterious Mr. Christie of the Canadian cookie company. Then it would make more sense.

I shudder when I think that ITV was going to produce a series back in the 90s based on the Sir Henry Merrivale books...

You are right. Butchering her story, They Do It with Mirrors (the more recent version) isn't paying her much respect is it.

You ignore the fact that barely a thing was touched. If anything, the locked-room problem was made more difficult to solve.

And before I'm attacked on the point, let me point out that my problem with homosexuals in Agatha Christie is that a homosexual, if present, is the murderer every time, except for in A Murder is Announced. This is simply the most disgusting thing to happen in mysteries of any form since the Fu Manchu tales and their countless ripoffs, when Chinese people in such 'mysteries' were automatically hell-bent on world domination.

Barely anything was touched? Really? Could've fooled me. 

Using your logic, having a hetrosexual as the murderer 99.999999999% of the time is even worse than having a homosexual as the murderer .00000000001% of the time. Should we make the family pet the murderer instead?

Introducing homosexual tendencies in characters merely to make them murderers is worse than keeping a heterosexual murderer heterosexual. Therefore, it is your logic that is clearly flawed, thank you very much.

They Do It With Mirrors had a few changes, but remained generally intact. Murder is Easy was silly with its idiotic plot changes, but I don't see you calling foul. A Body in the Library wasn't ruined by the ending, but it wasn't aided any, either. Replace Agatha Christie's ingenuity (which was kept in Mirrors), and what do you have? A product that uses her name to sell itself, because it's incapable of being sold otherwise.

In the television adaptation of Murder is Easy and the book, They Did It with Mirrors, there were no chase scenes (that made no sense) involving a bicycle right out of a Keystone Kops or skinny dipping (that even made less sense) right out of I don’t know what. Instead of a rehabilitation center for juvenile delinquents, there is a prison or a prisoner of war camp, complete with fence and I believe barbed wire and search lights. You are not going to have this type of institution on the grounds of stately home run by a private charitable foundation. The premise in the book is more credible. One of the main characters walks around dressed up as a Native American and a house guest is put up in the prison (and forced to wash his own shirts and hang them out to try on a clothes line). In the book and the television adaptation with Joan Hickson, the theater is used as a way to rehabilitate the JDs, not as a contrived gimmick to set the scene to create an alibi for the time of the murder. Joan Collin’s character Ruth pops in and out like female version of a Jack-in-the-box for no apparent reason, with dialogue that would make a vaudeville comic blush. I nearly fell out of my chair when she told a police constable to put her bags in the car, like he was a footman. Though, the biggest problem (at least for me) is the murder scenario, it doesn’t work unless levitation is part of the magic act or illusion. There were not enough clues (physical or otherwise). The viewer had no chance to solve the murder, let alone Miss. Marple solving it unless she had an Ouija board hidden in her knitting bag. In the book and in the television adaptation of They Do It with Mirrors with Joan Hickson the murder scenario is logistically possible and there are enough clues, for Miss. Marple and the viewer to be able to solve the murder.

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.

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?  

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.

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.  

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.  

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.

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

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.....

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.

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.

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.     

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.

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.

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

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).