The Day Of The Triffids to return to BBC next year

[Glaucus]

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?

Money, selling it under a brand name.

two we are talking about interpretation around the same theme. Not something completely different.

Absolutely agree, and no one is disagreeing with you.

)

Unfortunately a lot of people do, you see it time and again in threads. picking out story changes and rubbishing the film, rather than taking it at face value, These same people usually look out for plot holes in action films.

 

[McManicMan]

The 1981 series was much better. Watching the new one and hated the amount of stuff they changed to make it "more interesting for tv viewers".

 

[Tombstone]

Money, selling it under a brand name.

two we are talking about interpretation around the same theme. Not something completely different.

Indeed. Money. Marketing gimmicks. I prefer things to remain faithful to their source myself.

For some its interpretation, for others altering perfectly good original characters for no reason other than to be "different" is in itself something completely different.

Personal opinion though of course. I simply dont see the need to do it.

 

[Glaucus]

" is in itself something completely different.

.

which is why you should watch it with an open mind and not go it's called x, so it should do things exactly in xyz order. Many people right of good films just because they don't follow the original. Who cares, a film is either good or bad, regardless of what the original was like.

 

[Tombstone]

which is why you should watch it with an open mind and not go it's called x, so it should do things exactly in xyz order. Many people right of good films just because they don't follow the original. Who cares, a film is either good or bad, regardless of what the original was like.

Theres no point in me watching it, because I will simply sit there and moan throughout the whole film that things arent "right". Had they simply made the film without the need to shove a money making name onto the film then I would undoubtedly watch it and enjoy it.

 

[Glaucus]

Theres no point in me watching it, because I will simply sit there and moan throughout the whole film that things arent "right". Had they simply made the film without the need to shove a money making name onto the film then I would undoubtedly watch it and enjoy it.

But it is based around the same theme. If they called it something else you would have been complaining it was a total rip off.

I suggest you don't watch remakes as every single one has differences in.

 

[Tombstone]

But it is based around the same theme. If they called it something else you would have been complaining it was a total rip off.

I suggest you don't watch remakes as every single one has differences in.

Nope, I wouldnt be complaining its a rip off. If I was that sort of person I would have to proclaim every detective story that involves 2 people a rip off. If a story is good enough, and the acting is good enough, and the potrayal is good enough, it shouldnt need to resort to marketing gimmicks.

Generally I dont watch remakes, I frankly dont see the need for them, unless the original was awful of course. But when the originals were perfectly fine I simply dont see the point of remaking it and "revising" it, seems simply unneccesary.

 

[NeilF]

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.

But case in hand, the Triffids remake was close enough to the source material to still warrant its title don't you think? Just a shame it didn't live up to the source material in some ways...

 

[Tombstone]

But case in hand, the Triffids remake was close enough to the source material to still warrant its title don't you think? Just a shame it didn't live up to the source material in some ways...

I very nearly wrote yes absolutely in response to this. Then after typing it in, I gave it some more thought.

I'm not sure to be honest, it had triffids yes. But I also think that it veered away from the original enough that to be honest, they could have made the program be about something else (a virus, an asteroid impact, an alien lifeform invading etc etc) and still have the same program. In effect, it could have been made with similar values and similar characters without the need to attach the Day of the Triffids to it. The whole Eddie Izzard thing was just ?? to me and I still cannot see any reason why Coker was suddenly an American instead of British.

It could well be that these increasing rehashes of old films and tv shows are ways of cashing in on our desire to see them again. Whereas I often think that sometimes classic books/films/shows should just be left the hell alone, they're still there if we want to see/read them again. Case in point are such things as the remakes of Clash of the Titans, Karate Kid and Nightmare on Elm Street. The originals were fine, just let them be. I seriously find myself wondering if in 5 years time we will see the remake of Saving Private Ryan announced, set in the Iraq War with Private Ryan being played by Angelina Jolie as a struggling single mother who went to war with her brothers to ensure a safer future for her child.

Its those kind of arbitrary and seemingless pointless changes (particularly the Coker nationality) to originals that really rather irk me. Take the "remake" of Battlestar Galactica for instance (and yes..I know I am treading on dangerous ground here as BSG is near worshipped here) , why was Starbuck suddenly a woman? I mean the original Starbuck was a great character and well written but why change the entire gender, other than for the reason of saying "hey..look at what we did ! we've got the character but we've changed the gender *cue fake Home Alone style clasping of cheeks and open mouth* Arent we wicked !!"

Nevertheless, I digress and have slightly taken the thread off tack onto a seperate issue. I guess ultimately there is no right and wrong way of doing it, just merely personal tastes. I like my stories to maintain a cohesion when they are told, not have changes made to them for no other reason than to be different. You want to be different? Then write your own story rather than rehashing someone elses but making a few changes so that you can call it your own "vision" of the subject. Others are quite happy to watch anything, as long as its good and original storyline/characters be damned. Its simply personal tastes.

 

[NeilF]

I very nearly wrote yes absolutely in response to this. Then after typing it in, I gave it some more thought.

I'm not sure to be honest, it had triffids yes. But I also think that it veered away from the original enough that to be honest, they could have made the program be about something else and still have the same program. The whole Eddie Izzard thing was just ?? to me and I still cannot see any reason why Coker was suddenly an American instead of British.

Its those kind of arbitrary and seemingless pointless changes (particularly the Coker nationality) to originals that really rather irk me. Take the "remake" of Battlestar Galactica for instance (and yes..I know I am treading on dangerous ground here as BSG is near worshipped here) , why was Starbuck suddenly a woman? I mean the original Starbuck was a great character and well written but why change the entire gender, other than for the reason of saying "hey..look at what we did ! we've got the character but we've changed the gender *cue fake Home Alone style clasping of cheeks and open mouth* Arent we wicked !!"

Nevertheless, I digress and have slightly taken the thread off tack onto a seperate issue. I guess ultimately there is no right and wrong way of doing it, just merely personal tastes. I like my stories to maintain a cohesion when they are told, not have changes made to them for no other reason than to be different. You want to be different? Then write your own story rather than rehashing someone elses but making a few changes so that you can call it your own "vision" of the subject.

It is a tough call. If things are changed and they work well, fine... If the overall premise is changed to such an extent it no longer even really resembles the original film (think The Italian Job remake here ) then make it a new film/title entirely.

ps: I have no problem with Coker being american, if the actor/character works well in the new version. As it was, the character was pretty much a waste of time, at least compaired to the book/1981 version.

 

[Tombstone]

(think The Italian Job remake here )

Good god yeah, thats another classic example !!

 

[NeilF]

Good god yeah, thats another classic example !!

Or Dawn of the Dead... Apart from happening to throw in a shopping mall (for the sake of it), it could have been any zombie movie, as it really was nothing like its (superior IMHO) namesake.

 

[SexyGreyFox]

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

blah blah blah

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

You missed my post because you're too busy misquoting me which is quite funny

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 bet you feel foolish now.

I'm a massive Star Trek fan but for my sins I know that the story lines are completely unbelievable and crap most of the time.
It still doesn't stop me enjoying one of the best shows on TV.

Why can't you accept that I have an opinion and my opinion is that I think the main 2 plots of The Day Of The Triffids are crap?
BUT even though I think they are crap (like most Sci fi) I still enjoy them.
What is your problem?

 

[NeilF]

You missed my post because you're too busy misquoting me which is quite funny

I bet you feel foolish now.

You're absolutely right. Your rapier intelligence and insightful comments have left me a broken man...

So you're declaring the premise of basically every scifi/fantasy film as crap. If that's your opinion, then that's absolutely fine of course - But it doesn't mean that we have to agree with you, and that's our opinion of course


As a final comment on the matter - and I've pointed this out a number of times - I think what is interesting is that you've never managed to construct any real comment/point/argument/insight into Day of the Triffids other than to fixate on the (two) points by which you define the story as "crap". There's a lot more of course to the story, but at no time have you really come to mention the characters, the actions they took, the groups/people/circumstances they encountered, the situations they found themselves in, the ways they overcame those situation, or the overall outcome of the story... And I think this is what's most telling, and what some people have pointed out to you a number of times. The leaps of faith to enter these alternative universes are just that, leaps of faith. Without them, we'd not have science fiction (or fantasy). In effect we take those initial leaps as part of an agreement (with the author/writer) in entering the alternative Universe. From then on, it's the rest of the story that's all important...



OK guys... I've tried, but I can't really get much sense out of him... And we're going in circles... So I'm off it.

ps: Someone mentioned the 1959 (?) radio play as being impressive? So I'll see if I can hunt it down, and report back.

 

[NeilF]

I still cannot see any reason why Coker was suddenly an American instead of British.

Thinking about this, do you recon it's as simply as a means of better selling it to the US market? ie: A well known US actor on the cast list?

 

[SexyGreyFox]

OK guys... I've tried, but I can't really get much sense out of him... And we're going in circles... So I'm off it.

OK guys, I can't really get much sense out of Neil and Neil thinks you are all on his side and has done nothing but insult me with his talking down to me, roll his eyes and trying to make me look foolish and not once have I bitten.
So, do you think I am allowed my own opinion?
Do you think that even though a story may be bad it can still be turned into a watchable movie?
When watching a movie like Day Of The Triffids do you think you should be watching all the interaction between characters or do you think you should take a leap of faith, turn your brain off and enjoy it like I do?
Neil is trying to turn Day Of The Triffids into some type of Shakespearean novel but I just think it is a no brainer - what do you think?
Is there hidden agendas to Terminator, ET, Star Trek and 1000s of other Sci-Fi movies or are they just leap of faith movies that are no brainers?
I'm really interested because I don't think Day Of The Triffids is a 'classic' piece of writing like Neil does.

 

[NeilF]

Do you think that even though a story may be bad it can still be turned into a watchable movie?

Just to pick you up on a technicality here:-

I certainly never read the book.... Let's face it, it's about plants eating people, how much crapper can it get?

1) If you recall you declared the book (you had never read) as "crap" (bad). You'd only seen the 2009 remake at this point.

2) You keep going on about it being a bad (or crap) story, but tell us why? You keep harking on about the premise of the Triffids of retina damage as making the story "crap", but these are the leaps of faith required for the peice of fiction, just like radio active spiders are for Spiderman, time travel for Terminator - but these aren't declared as "crap" just for that (by most folks). If you think the "story" is crap then for once talk about it... The people, the situations, the events... Or did you -as you suggest - just turn your brain off while watching?

 

[Tombstone]

When watching a movie like Day Of The Triffids do you think you should be watching all the interaction between characters or do you think you should take a leap of faith, turn your brain off and enjoy it like I do?
Neil is trying to turn Day Of The Triffids into some type of Shakespearean novel but I just think it is a no brainer - what do you think?
Is there hidden agendas to Terminator, ET, Star Trek and 1000s of other Sci-Fi movies or are they just leap of faith movies that are no brainers?
I'm really interested because I don't think Day Of The Triffids is a 'classic' piece of writing like Neil does.

If it helps, yes, I do watch all the interaction between the characters. I watch facial expressions, body movements, listen to their voices as well as what it is they are actually saying. Much as I do when I go to see a play at the theatre. I dont generally turn my brain off, nor do I particularly like films/shows where I can just turn my brain off and just watch explosions and CGI or whatever.

On the issue of hidden agendas, thats an absolute yes...there most certainly is hidden agendas in many Sci-fi shows. In fact Star Trek (particularly the original series) is absolutely riddled with hidden agendas, everything from social structure, communism, racism (anyone remember the episode with the half white/half black race?) to drug abuse, euthanasia and abortion. Many of the sci-fi shows that I can think of have what might be called hidden agendas, if the viewer takes the time to think about whats being said, whats being shown and read the metaphors and substitutes used. ET also has a fair bit of hidden meaning, as do things like Babylon 5 and The Prisoner. Terminator maybe not so much though

I would say that the gist of what Wyndham was writing about in Day of The Triffids wasnt actually the Triffids. Rather it was a story with many "hidden" meanings within its plot, socio and pyschological comments and quite a lot of musings on the nature of man and the social structures that he creates. For me that was conveyed quite well in the 1981 series but was rather overlooked in favour of quicker paced action in the 2009 remake. I attribute this almost entirely to the difference in the types of viewers between then and now. I think the art of storytelling has changed a lot over the last 40 years and imo, greatly for the worse.

 

[SexyGreyFox]

Or did you -as you suggest - just turn your brain off while watching?

Yes, I do with most films because I never give them my full attention.
I don't sit there watching every mistake that is made and enjoy it for what it is although 2012 tested me a bit.
The film I'm watching now is complete twaddle but enjoyable none the less.
When you get to watch it you'll probably see some hidden meaning between the 2 main characters but I just see twaddle and a bit of fun.

 

[NeilF]

Sorry to reboot this thread, but I watched episode 4 and 5 of the original (1981) series last night...

Episode 4 alone IMHO contained far more interest, depth and insight than the entire 3hrs of the recent remake. After watching it, I couldn't believe it was only 27 minutes long TBH due to how much content was in there. The pace seemed to not rush in the slightest, giving time where necessary to people/events. Most notibly people actually talk a lot to each other about things, giving insight into themselves and events surrounding them (this seemed lacking in the modern version). No massive explosions, huge battles or gun fights were required to keep it interesting and intriguing. It's feet were kept firmly on the ground, giving a more solid/realistic feel.

Even my partner, who was watching at times as she came in/out of the room, commented on how much went on in such a short space of time, and how much deeper and more interesting it seemed than the recent remake.

Also interesting how of that 27 minutes, Torrence - appearing for the first time - was given about one minute of screen time... He appears again in the final episode for about just 5 minutes, and that's it...

Episode 5, again seems to offer so much in its 27 minute running time, with Bill and Coker spending much of the episode togethor. And here again, insightful conversation (not action or explosions) gives depth to the characters, triffids and apocalypse.


I hadn't watched these old episodes for years, but I see my recollection of them was fair - Yes, the acting is a little wooden in places, and the effects not maybe upto modern day standards*, but as a piece of drama - which at the end of the day is what it's trying to be - it's outstanding!

* - I find the triffids in the original series far more imposing and believable than the modern CGI counterparts we saw. They are better explained in the original, are simpler (less mobile, less moving parts, less ninjary) and therefore more believable. Even little bits of attention to detail as explained and shown, that the triffids find cities like deserts, as they don't like concrete etc... Where as in the modern adaptation, short of seeing them driving golf karts, they seemed to be as mobile as they like (even climbing trees).