Triffids

[thedonal]

Well- was a bit disappointed with that.

The first 45 minutes seemed to be very lacking in direction and meandered too much. They could have set the scene much more concisely and covered more in less time.

Oh well. It got better and part two looks to be a big improvement.

[zsv650]

what the old 70's film with the plant monsters.

[thedonal]

Nar- the new BBC remake that was just on.

Never saw the 70's film. Was well scared by the 80's BBC series. Love the book.

Probably 28 Days Later will prove to be the best remake of the book in the long run.

[DarrenSV650S]

Is it scary?

[zsv650]

Nar- the new BBC remake that was just on.


it never stood a chance :smt069

[thedonal]

Is it scary?

Not as such- it gets a bit tense, but relies too much on the dramatic music.

I think the tension will be higher in the second part, tomorrow.

Worth a watch, I reckon. But not all that.

[Bri w]

Read the book at least 1/2 doz times since being given it for o-level in the mid '70's.

Was disappointed with last night's effort and left the room with half an hour gone. Recorded it and will probably watch it later.

[Rai86]

But you have to admit, Eddie Izzard makes a awesome bad guy....and strangly sexy!

[fizzwheel]

I really like the book, I thought last nights effort was poor. I dont know why though. It didnt seem to capture the chaos / fear that comes across in the book.

I'm hoping that the 2nd part of it is better.

[Bear]

I thought the script was a bit dodgy in places: relies on characters knowing stuff the audience does but which the characters would have no way of knowing. Example: they meet Torrence, and immediately don't trust him for no reason that is on screen. We know he's a bad guy, but there's no suggestion in his behaviour during that scene that would lead them to suspect him.

[Bear]

Also, and I'm being picky here, there is no Torrence Road in the W1 postcode of london...

[thedonal]

I thought the script was a bit dodgy in places: relies on characters knowing stuff the audience does but which the characters would have no way of knowing. Example: they meet Torrence, and immediately don't trust him for no reason that is on screen. We know he's a bad guy, but there's no suggestion in his behaviour during that scene that would lead them to suspect him.

Yeah, but you know- some people just give off a vibe...!

[pencil shavings]

I thought this looked interesting, but then gave up after about an hour, just couldnt take it seriously!

[Bear]

Yeah, but you know- some people just give off a vibe...!

Absolutely, but in TV/film, that needs to be shown in some way. Otherwise we know they aren't gonna trust him just 'coz he's the baddy!

[speedplay]

Example: they meet Torrence, and immediately don't trust him for no reason that is on screen. We know he's a bad guy, but there's no suggestion in his behaviour during that scene that would lead them to suspect him.


I trusted you when I first met you and look where that got me! ;)

[skeetly]

Triffids?
Pfft!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lY1za9J3ifM

[zsv650]

yeah thatd **** a triffid up.

[fizzwheel]

I thought the 2nd half of it was much better. But the BBC have f*cked about with the storyline it doesnt follow the book gah...

[maviczap]

I didn't watch the first part, but watched last nights and I enjoyed it. Better than some of the carp that's been on, especially the usual Eastenders murder, wedding doom & gloom that typyfies Christmas TV these days

[thedonal]

It was OK. But just OK.

I was relieved that there wasn't any change to the ending. But they had to throw a father son rift into it to be healed, didn't they. Been taking too many notes of Koepp and Spielberg from War of the Worlds, I reckon.

Everything has to be a f*cking soap opera these days, doesn't it? They could have modernised it and still kept true to the plot of the book.

Izzard was a great bad guy- though the way that was finished, it was more as though the whole thing was about him, rather than the triffids and breakdown of civilisation.

[Rai86]

I thought it was quite good, a little scary in fact - to the point where i was eyeing up my aloe-vera plant Boris for signs of suspicious behaviour!

[thedonal]

It did have a few tense moments. Too much was invented for this, though, rather than used from the book.

[speedplay]

I think, In short..

If I hadn't read the book, I would have enjoyed it more.

[thedonal]

I think, In short..

If I hadn't read the book, I would have enjoyed it more.

Probably the same with any adaptation, though.

[speedplay]

Probably the same with any adaptation, though.

yup.

Theres loads of things I have watched where I have come away feeling robbed.

I think the problem is that when you read a book, you set the scene, what the characters look and sound like etc in your mind.

But you have hit the nail on the head when you said "adaptation".

They have to cut and change things to fit it into a 2 part show.

Although, they could have done a much better job by spreading it over 6 weeks.

[thedonal]

yup.

Theres loads of things I have watched where I have come away feeling robbed.

I think the problem is that when you read a book, you set the scene, what the characters look and sound like etc in your mind.

But you have hit the nail on the head when you said "adaptation".

They have to cut and change things to fit it into a 2 part show.

Although, they could have done a much better job by spreading it over 6 weeks.

They could have done justice to the book by sticking to it more- there would have been more time for this, even in the 3 hours given, if they'd written less of their own stuff in.

I guess that's the arrogance of the screenwriter- they think they know better than the author and misjudge what would make better watching than reading. Though I remember criticism of the first Harry Potter film being that it stuck too closely to the book...