The Day Of The Triffids to return to BBC next year

dmpoole said:
I have no problem at all with people enjoying the book or the 82 series but to say they are way better because you don't have to have as many 'leap of faiths' is puddled.
Click to expand...

OK... I'm sitting here with my morning cup of coffee, and I'll give it another go...

"Puddled?" - The problem many people have (in this thread) ARE the 'leaps of faith' the new adaptation expects of the audience. When they get too many or too great in nature, you just lose all faith or belief in what you're seeing (or reading). Even my partner commented on some dafter aspects of the new one (which is unlike her), "why would they do that?", "why don't they do....instead?" etc etc...

Daft situations, daft events, or characters doing daft things, over and over, are far too common in this modern adaptation, especially when compared to the 1982 one. Hence people using the 1982 TV series (or the book) as a measuring stick.

In the book & 1982 TV series, once you've taken your leap of faith with the premise (genetically modified plants and the comet/meteor storm) I don't really recall any further far fetched scenarios or suggested behaviour. ie: Events are tangable, and behaviour believable. The version we saw last week does not share this. Instead we see extremely far fetched scenarious (over and over), and people behaving in bizarre ways (over and over).


I'm sure all of us in this thread would have liked a good solid retelling of this classic story, be it that it had followed the original story to the letter, or wondered off the path (as this one has), but with either scenario, we want intelligent sensible story telling, and we didn't (unfortunatelly) really get that.


Then we get to someone who has never even read the book, or can't recall the 1982 TV series that many people are talking about, wading in with their opinion - criticizing the original book and TV series, and having a dig at those individuals singing its merits. How can you have a fair opinion on something you've not read or can't recall seeing? I have no idea? OK, you don't like the two leaps-of-faith (the triffids or comet/meteor show) it asks of you, but I think you'll find there's a lot more to the book (& 1982 TV series) than that... But you wouldn't know of course...
 
The ultimate problem i had was the characters. In the book (never saw the old series however), while the situation was completely unreal, the characters weren't. They behaved in a realistic and understandable manner whilst in unbelievable circumstances, this gives the book the slight hint of realism it needs to relate to the characters and in turn involve yourself in the story.

In this the characters show no hint of logical thought or reasoning, they behave in random and unpredictable ways. It feels like the plot is driving the characters decisions when it should be the other way around; the plot should be derived from the behaviour and decisions of the characters.

To be honest, i wouldn't be shocked if this was written by the same people that screwed up survivors. Both display the same issues of inconsistent and illogical characters.

In short, it sucked, it has inspired me to pick the book up again for another read, if only to save the concept.
 
Streeteh said:
The ultimate problem i had was the characters. In the book (never saw the old series however), while the situation was completely unreal, the characters weren't. They behaved in a realistic and understandable manner whilst in unbelievable circumstances, this gives the book the slight hint of realism it needs to relate to the characters and in turn involve yourself in the story.

In this the characters show no hint of logical thought or reasoning, they behave in random and unpredictable ways. It feels like the plot is driving the characters decisions when it should be the other way around; the plot should be derived from the behaviour and decisions of the characters.

To be honest, i wouldn't be shocked if this was written by the same people that screwed up survivors. Both display the same issues of inconsistent and illogical characters.

In short, it sucked, it has inspired me to pick the book up again for another read, if only to save the concept.
Click to expand...
Exactly...

"In this the characters show no hint of logical thought or reasoning, they behave in random and unpredictable ways. It feels like the plot is driving the characters decisions when it should be the other way around; the plot should be derived from the behaviour and decisions of the characters." - Perfectly demonstrated by the final scene (*SPOILER*) where Torrence's men just stand at the fence being taken one by one by the Triffids, seemingly unable to remember how to walk backwards. Or how none of the characters seem to remember how effects a one and half tonne vehicle (they had 3-4 cars) might be against a couple of triffids, so instead decide to risk certain death...
 
If I'm not mistaken, the original book (& TV series) covers 5-6 years into the future after the incident? Jo & Bill in the house/farm with Jo's blind friends (& children), surrounded by Triffids, using flame throwers to keep their number down from time to time? And Bill having to forage further and further afield for supplies?

And that's when Coker finds them (by helicopter)... And that's also when Torrence turns up, representing the authority from Brighton?

So the modern adaptation seems to place over weeks/months, whereas the original is over several years.
 
Evangelion said:
In the book, the triffids' oil was used as a substitute for vegetable oil (which makes perfect sense) not crude oil (which doesn't). The 1981 series faithfully retained this original premise which is one of the reasons why it's so believable
Click to expand...

He was also suggested in the '81 series that Triffid Oil could be used as an additive to petrol, hence why the triffids were allowed to stay.

I watched the first episode from the original last night. It's amazingly good, but nothing actually happens. Masen has only just removed his patches, and is working out what had happened by the end of the show.

Interestingly the triffids where already free at this point too.
 
NeilFawcett said:
If I'm not mistaken, the original book (& TV series) covers 5-6 years into the future after the incident? Jo & Bill in the house/farm with Jo's blind friends (& children), surrounded by Triffids, using flame throwers to keep their number down from time to time? And Bill having to forage further and further afield for supplies?

And that's when Coker finds them (by helicopter)... And that's also when Torrence turns up, representing the authority from Brighton?

So the modern adaptation seems to place over weeks/months, whereas the original is over several years.
Click to expand...

Yes, thats what happens. When Torrence finally finds them it was because they saw Coker's helicopter (which he had learned to fly in a few weeks).

In that time, Susan had grown up, and Bill and Jo had had kids. They used an Electric fence to keep the triffids away, and Susan killed them regularly with a flame thrower. They did say that the triffids where gaining intelligence, and where planning to move before Coker told them of the Isle of Wight.

Night of the Triffids by Simon Clarke is a follow up, and isn't too bad.
 
Gooner14 said:
He was also suggested in the '81 series that Triffid Oil could be used as an additive to petrol, hence why the triffids were allowed to stay.

I watched the first episode from the original last night. It's amazingly good, but nothing actually happens. Masen has only just removed his patches, and is working out what had happened by the end of the show.

Interestingly the triffids where already free at this point too.
Click to expand...

The pacing in the 81 series is far more leisurly, but you seem to get so much more out of it because of this. You get a reel feel for the situation(s)/characters.

Let us know when you've watched a few more. I'd love to hear what you think of it...
 
I've seen it before ;) This is the 3rd or 4th time. But your right, more happens in less time. They used flash backs well to set the scene. A few flash backs explained the whole history of triffids, what Masen did, and how he wasn't blinded.

I think it's great, but I love 70/80's tv like this. The original Survivors is my all time favourite show, Threads, etc.
 
Gooner14 said:
I've seen it before ;) This is the 3rd or 4th time. But your right, more happens in less time. They used flash backs well to set the scene. A few flash backs explained the whole history of triffids, what Masen did, and how he wasn't blinded.

I think it's great, but I love 70/80's tv like this. The original Survivors is my all time favourite show, Threads, etc.
Click to expand...

Another BBC 1980s series I enjoyed was the Tripods... Although the fact it ends on a massive cliff hanger due to the 3rd (final) series being cancelled is very annoying!
 
Another John Christopher Classic :) Supposed to be a film in 2012, whether it will happen who knows, it's been in the pipeline for years.
 
NeilFawcett said:
Samuel Youd :)

ps: I must read The Death Of Grass!
Click to expand...

Same Person:p

Yes it's very good, as mentioned World in Winter is as good, I also found I've read Empty World which was short but an enjoyable read.

'Wrinkle in the Skin' hasn't been finished yet, sitting on the desk.
 
Gooner14 said:
Same Person:p
Click to expand...


I think he was well aware of that...


Slightly odder, one of John Wyndham's books was marketed as being by "John Wyndham, with Lucas Parkes". The author's full name is of course, John Wyndham Parkes Lucas Beynon Harris. So in other words he collaborated with himself.


M
 
Meridian said:
I think he was well aware of that...


Slightly odder, one of John Wyndham's books was marketed as being by "John Wyndham, with Lucas Parkes". The author's full name is of course, John Wyndham Parkes Lucas Beynon Harris. So in other words he collaborated with himself.


M
Click to expand...

In the early days he used quite a collection of names after the John.

'Stowaway to Mars' and 'The Secret People' were both originally published as being by John Beynon.
 
I'm on number 5 of the 81 series and the acting is awful.
It's actually more cheesy than the original film but it does explain things a lot better.
 
dmpoole said:
I'm on number 5 of the 81 series and the acting is awful.
It's actually more cheesy than the original film but it does explain things a lot better.
Click to expand...

Some of the acting it not great - but remember it's nearly 30 years old - but its certainly not aweful IMHO. Far better than the acting in the 1962 film which is really dated!

But do you notice how it gives a far better appreciation of the disaster? How you get to know characters better, how there's a greater feel for time passing and how nicely paced it is? It's just far more believable with character doing things you could imagine yourself doing, and events not being unrealistic . The TV series adheres to simple believable rules and shows characters carrying out believable actions/responses to believable events - No one , for example, has to emerge from a crashed plane looking like a chimney sweep to move the story along :) Or people just stand still for no reason to allow triffids to come up and kill them.

Do you also see how the triffids do not need to move quickly to be enough of a menace to move the story forwards? ie: No need for them become ninja triffids and attack from up in trees!



ps: Please don't descent into one of your rants again...
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom