The Day Of The Triffids to return to BBC next year

[NeilF]

Why do you keep changing my original comment?
You are the one who keeps sayimng I said the book is crap.
The main 2 points of the story is a crap unbelievable story.
I don't have to read a book to know that those 2 points are totally unbelievable.

*sigh*

I apologise, you're right, I have been changing your words as regards you saying the book (you've not read) is "crap" - Your exact words were, "how much crappier can it get."


Now, what's more unbelievable (I'll use the same examples as before in the vein hope they sink in)?
- Genetically modified plants that can move and use a stinger? A meteor shower (or something) that is so bright, or emits some for of light, that it damaged your retinas. [Day of the Triffids]
- Time travel? Super intelligent AI hell bent on the destruction of humanity, who can't pick a better time period to send an assassin robot back to kill an individual's mother (eg: when she's a helpless baby)?. Or you need flesh around metal in order to time travel? [Terminator]
- Spaceships fly like planes in space and you can hear sounds in a vacuum. Your mind can also control objects and other people? [Star Wars]


Of all these, I'd suggest the latter two are more far fetched and unbelievable. But I suspect you don't (want to) see that?

And let's remember a triffid is absolutely possible. With just a bit more genetic knowledge that we have now (eg: end of this century) we could possibly concoct almost any creature we like, within reason. And we already know bright lights and certain radiation can induce eye damage/blindness. So both points are infact quite feasible. Unlike time travel, or the laws of physics not applying in space. So in truth Day of the Triffids is far more realistic than Terminator or Star Wars. So maybe level your "crappier" mentality at those?

 

[SexyGreyFox]

*sigh*

I apologise, you're right, I have been changing your words as regards you saying the book (you've not read) is "crap" - Your exact words were, "how much crappier can it get."

After detailing the 2 major unbelievable points I asked how much crappier can it get?
Your answer is it doesn't and it is believeable from then on.
I haven't argued with that, my point is the 2 major parts of the story are crap.

Of all these, I'd suggest the latter two are more far fetched and unbelievable. But I suspect you don't (want to) see that?

Why do you keep bringing up other Sci Fi films?

 

[Vonhelmet]

I'll bet you enjoyed Star Wars, even though many elements of that are ludicrously unbelievable.

 

[NeilF]

After detailing the 2 major unbelievable points I asked how much crappier can it get?
Your answer is it doesn't and it is believeable from then on.
I haven't argued with that, my point is the 2 major parts of the story are crap.



Why do you keep bringing up other Sci Fi films?

This continues to be comical


Why do I keep bringing up other scifi films? Are you really unable to read simple English? It would explain a lot if this were the case?

Over and over you've declared a book you've not read as being "crap", not due to its overall story, but just due to its two cornerstones (leaps-of-faith):-
a) A genetically modified/created plant, the Triffid.
b) A meteor show, or something akin, blinding anyone looking at it.

You delcare these two "leaps of faith" utterly unbelievable, thus declaring the book (& TV series) as "crap".

As I (& other people) have clearly suggested (repeatedly) most science-fiction relies on leaps of faith in order to enter the realms of the science fiction. I've listed some examples (for Terminator and Star Wars), which in reality are far more outlandish (& unbelievable) than those suggested by Day of the Triffids. As these leaps of faith are even more unbelievable than those suggested by Day of the Triffids, you must find these other works even "crappier" still?

Do you find "Star Wars", "The Terminator", "The Matrix", "Spiderman" all "crappier" than even "Day of the Triffids"? Seriously, a radioactive spider bites someone, and they get super powers? How "crappy" can it get?

My guess is you like (at least some of) those films - they've got lots of pretty lights and big explosions - so you're willing to accept the leaps of faith they require.

 

[SexyGreyFox]

Over and over you've declared a book you've not read as being "crap", not due to its overall story, but just due to its two cornerstones (leaps-of-faith):-

I have not declared the book to be crap.
I have declared the main 2 points to be a crap storyline.
And you say I'm comical.
Please stop making things up.

 

[Cosimo]

This continues to be comical

I beginning to enjoy this as much as "Book at Bedtime".

 

[SexyGreyFox]

I'll bet you enjoyed Star Wars, even though many elements of that are ludicrously unbelievable.

I enjoyed all 3 adaptions of Day Of The Triffids too.
Obviously you are only reading NeilFawcett's posts and not mine.
He is making claims that I've called the book 'crap' but I have called the 2 major plotlines 'crap' where he thinks they are 'believable'.
I have no problem with the films or book but I still think man eating, walking, talking, thinking plants is a bit daft and all of a sudden (nearly) everybody goes blind.
Neil, for some reason, keeps exaggerating what I said and then, for some reason, brings other Sci-Fi films into the argument (like you did).

 

[NeilF]

I still think man eating, walking, talking, thinking plants is a bit daft and all of a sudden (nearly) everybody goes blind.

But again, you side step the question posed. You've been asked it by myself and others probably half a dozen times now - So think really hard and see if you can give us an answer.

You consider the following two leaps of faith of the book too unbelievable:-
a) A genetically modified/created plant, the Triffid.
b) A meteor shower, or something akin, blinding anyone looking at it.

Now, how are these 'requirements' any more far fetched than 'leaps of faith' required by any number of other science fiction stories?

A radioactive spider bites a student, and they turn into a superhero. Is that believable? Really? More believable?

Personally I actually think (a) & (b) above are more believable...

Or how about a spaceman crash landing on a planet where ape like creatures are talking English. Ontop of this the human like creatures on the planet have lost the ability to speak, just like the spaceman due to a freak accident. And he happens to crashland on just the right part of just the right continent too! How does this rate on your "believability" meter?


So, you're willing to take the leaps of faith Spiderman or Planet of the Apes requires of you (not to mention those of Star Wars and Terminator as mentioned before), but not the just as plausible ones required by Day of the Triffids?

Why? See if you can give us a nicely thought out and explained point for a change - That's all we're after...

I enjoyed all 3 adaptions of Day Of The Triffids too.

I'm confused, because just a few posts ago you declared "Just finished the 81 series and to be honest it was bloody awful."

Seems you're just as confused by your thought processes as we are!

 

[NeilF]

I beginning to enjoy this as much as "Book at Bedtime".

Cracking stuff ain't it! It's more intriguing than the remake that's for sure...

 

[SexyGreyFox]

So, you're willing to take the leaps of faith Spiderman or Planet of the Apes requires of you (not to mention those of Star Wars and Terminator as mentioned before), but not the just as plausible ones required by Day of the Triffids?

I took a leap of faith with The Day Of The Triffids but I'm pointing out that the 2 main plots are crap story lines just like a radioactive spider or a robot that comes from the future.
I don't know why you keep changing my story.

I'm confused, because just a few posts ago you declared "Just finished the 81 series and to be honest it was bloody awful."

Seems you're just as confused by your thought processes as we are!

No I am not confused.
The acting was awful, the way it was filmed was awful but I still enjoyed it.
I'm watching another bloody awful film at the moment - The Taking of Pelham 123 (new version) and I'm enjoying it.

 

[NeilF]

I took a leap of faith with The Day Of The Triffids but I'm pointing out that the 2 main plots are crap story lines just like a radioactive spider or a robot that comes from the future.

Right, so we're getting somewhere So I assume then by the same process you've condemned Day of the Triffids (book & TV series etc) as "couldn't get any crapper" for its plots two "unbelievable" leaps of faith, now, on the same basis, you're declaring the following as "couldn't get any crapper" too?
- Spiderman
- Planet of the Apes
- Star Wars
- Terminator
- Hundreds/thousands of other works of science-fiction (and indeed fantasy)

Do you not see how your logic/reasoning seems utterly skewed? And more importantly unfounded and unfair?

My guess is of course no, as your comments have generally been confused, unfair and not the least bit insightful. Consider, you've now sat through in total about 450 minutes of Day of the Triffids (1962 film, 1981 & 2009 TV series) and all you've managed to bring to the table for or against it is, "walking plants? how much crapper can it get!" - Was your brain turned off for those 450 minutes? Did not a single good or bad element of writing/story you witnessed in any of them sink in? Could you not construct a single point around this? Or did you just sit there like Holmer Simpson for 450 minute with, instead of "mmmm... donuts" repeating in your head, just "walking plants... how much crapper can it get!" bouncing around in there...



Now, just before you start harking on about me misquoting you. These are your exact initial words that started this nonsense, when talking about a book which you haven't actually even read:-

Let's face it, it's about plants eating people, how much crapper can it get?



And to finish with, I'll repeat the two quotes from you I used before, if only to demonstrate your whole odd approach to this matter...

Just finished the 81 series and to be honest it was bloody awful

...followed swiftly after, when the mood took you by...

I enjoyed all 3 adaptions of Day Of The Triffids

 

[Glaucus]

Well I thought it was very good, But never read the books or been exposed to any of the old stuff.

 

[NeilF]

Well I thought it was very good, But never read the books or been exposed to any of the old stuff.

That might have worked in your favour then

The 1981 series - which of course has dated now due to its lower production values - follows the book far more closely, so doesn't have all the outlandish things offered in the new version. eg: Chimney sweeps emerging from jumbos which have crashed in a city at X-hundred miles an hour Or ninja triffids attacking from up in trees, where they roost for the night?

Personally I rate the 1981 version as a 8/10 and the 2009 version as a 6/10.

 

[SexyGreyFox]

These are your exact initial words that started this nonsense, when talking about a book which you haven't actually even read:-

Let's face it, it's about plants eating people, how much crapper can it get?

And how much crapper can it get?
Well perhaps they could have mutated into people once they had ate them or a spaceship could have taken them to another planet.
It could get a lot crapper.

And to finish with, I'll repeat the two quotes from you I used before, if only to demonstrate your whole odd approach to this matter...

Just finished the 81 series and to be honest it was bloody awful

...followed swiftly after, when the mood took you by...

I enjoyed all 3 adaptions of Day Of The Triffids

I can't see a problem with this.
For 37 years I had a season ticket at Stoke and had to endure 'bloody awful' every week but I still enjoyed it.
I am watching the end of a 'bloody awful' film now but I'm enjoying it - 2012 but it is more believable than Triffids even though the getting away scenes are ludicrous.

 

[NeilF]

And how much crapper can it get?
Well perhaps they could have mutated into people once they had ate them or a spaceship could have taken them to another planet.
It could get a lot crapper.

Well done, you've completely side-stepped the question again, in preference to spouting some more muddled nonsense... Bravo!

2012 but it is more believable than Triffids even though the getting away scenes are ludicrous.

Ummm...

Day of the Triffids
Triffids - Not outlandish in the least. We will almost certainly this century or next, have the genetic know how to start building creatures to our own spec. A slow moving plant with a stinger? Not really that far fetched.
Blindness - Bright lights blind. So again, not very far fetched.

2012
A mayans prophecy comes true for the end of the world by a huge solar event? How is that remotely plausible (does the film explain it out of interest)? Then add onto that, ridiculous implausible escape after escape after unbelievable escape? By the way, you realise a huge solar event could blind people? But that wouldn't be realistic would it


I'd suggest Day of the Triffids is actually more plausible. But the real question is, again, which is the better story and/or more enjoyable... That's down to personal tastes... Personally I think 2012 would do my head in like the recent Day of the Triffid adaptation with daft event after daft event...

 

[SexyGreyFox]

Well done, you've completely side-stepped the question again, in preference to spouting some more muddled nonsense... Bravo!

What is the question?

 

[NeilF]

What is the question?

LOL! It's like trying to drill into a wall with a blunt pencil... The one that's been repeated to you half a dozen times now by a number of people... I'll try one last time, because it's kind of funny and intriguing

Now listen carefully, I shall say (quote) this only once...

So I assume then by the same process you've condemned Day of the Triffids (book & TV series etc) as "couldn't get any crapper" for its plots two "unbelievable" leaps of faith, on the same basis, you'd declare the following as "couldn't get any crapper" too?
- Spiderman
- Planet of the Apes
- Star Wars
- Terminator
- Hundreds/thousands of other works of science-fiction (and indeed fantasy)

The above examples of science fiction contain leaps of faith far more unbelievable than those suggested in Day of the Triffids, so this must make them "crapper and crap" using your measuring stick?

If yes, then it's an odd measuring stick is it not? If no, then it's an odd measuring stick is it not?

Is Spiderman "crap" as well? And Superman? And Starwars... Feel free to continue this list as much as you like

 

[Glaucus]

That might have worked in your favour then

Why don't people just watch stuff with an open mind and realise things do not have to follow the book or anything else to the letter.

It's like I watched Sherlock Holmes and loved it. But I expect many people will dislike it because he has become an action hero, which he isn't in the books or previous tv programs. People should watch stuff for what it is, not what it is losley based on.

 

[NeilF]

Why don't people just watch stuff with an open mind and realise things do not have to follow the book or anything else to the letter.

It's like I watched Sherlock Holmes and loved it. But I expect many people will dislike it because he has become an action hero, which he isn't in the books or previous tv programs. People should watch stuff for what it is, not what it is losley based on.

Absolutely agree, and no one is disagreeing with you.

But the piece needs to exist on its own merits. While the 2009 version of Day of the Triffids did have some good points, it also had countless unecessary daft/weak aspects to it. Now these, if you can look past them are fine, but a lot of folks who are familiar with the original book or 1981 TV series, unfortunately these issues stand out like a sore thumb.

Poor/daft writing creates too many daft events and character behaviour, and the unecessary wondering away from the original plot - while not a problem in itself - in this example seems to create a scruffy storyline for no gain.

No one in this thread - I believe - is criticising the 2009 version of being different, just for being unecessarily daft (poorly written) in a lot of places.

It doesn't make it bad, just not as good as it could have easily have been...

ps: Looking forward to seeing Sherlock

 

[Tombstone]

Why don't people just watch stuff with an open mind and realise things do not have to follow the book or anything else to the letter.

It's like I watched Sherlock Holmes and loved it. But I expect many people will dislike it because he has become an action hero, which he isn't in the books or previous tv programs. People should watch stuff for what it is, not what it is losley based on.

I think its because people dont see the point in using a known name or story and then altering the characters in it just for the sake of it. Why bother to put the Sherlock Holmes name onto something which then isnt going to be representative of the name? Why not simply do the same exciting film but without having to use the Holmes name?

Consider if you will, what would be the reaction I wonder if they decided to make a Half Life movie, but instead of the main character being Gordon Freeman, they decided to make it about a female scientist called Georgia Freeman and she is assisted through the story by Brad Pitt playing a gung ho resistance fighter.

Or how about they remake Scarface but this time its about a guy in the Bronx fighting the street gangs, starring Denzel Washington?

I like exciting films, I like well written stories, I like depth of plot and feasibility within the story world. However, I simply dont see the need to take an existing decent book/film/tv show and do it but not stay faithful to the original source , especially when the original source is already so good in the first place. Thats perhaps just me though.