The Day Of The Triffids to return to BBC next year
- Thread starter msmalls74
- Start date
The character didn't even appear in the 1981 TV series did it?
I can't remember. He might simply have been unnamed throughout the series.
Oh, and two 90-minute episodes for this series? FAIL!
Last edited:
Attention spans were higher in the 80s, people of today cant concentrate on meaningful acted conversations for very long now. Have to keep their retinas ticking over with CGI and "action" otherwise their mushed up brains cant follow a plot.
I can't remember. He might simply have been unnamed throughout the series.
Oh, and two 90-minute episodes for this series? FAIL!
In the book, what did he do? I don't recall?
The 1981 TV series was 6x26 minutes, and they managed to do a pretty good job... But even with more time in the new series, and all this rushing around, it still feels like it's skimming the surface and missing the point sort of? There's been just one or two glimmers of some depth and insight, but it's soon eradicated by some more flat silly writing.
In the 1981 series the Coker trying to save the blind was at least a whole 26 minute episode which gave you time to realise it was a nice thought, but just wasn't going to work. In the new episode it's all glossed over quickly and the point is missed...
Last edited:
Gary Olsen, played the part. He was the red haired man who attached Bill when he was in his blind convey, and then latter on he was named as Torrence after they saw the Helicopter of Coker land at the farm.
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0647653/
I actually liked the show last night
He was another guy trying to organise the sighted people, but with rather more sinister and dictatorial aims. IIRC, Wyndham doesn't flesh this character out very much and leaves him somewhat enigmatic, thereby adding to his air of malice.
Well, exactly. Wyndham's books are slow by today's standards, but beautifully paced for maximum tension and pathos. You can't rush his plots. I would love to see a decent adaptation of The Kraken Wakes.
^^ There ya go.
i had never seen the 80's original, so not much to compare it to but i really enjoyed it, and i think it was good how they made a plant feel ominous which i suppose is a pretty hard thing to do. the sets looked pretty awesome too especially the ones shot on london streets.
and eugine roe from band of brothers showed up which i though was class even if he does play a bad guy.
and eugine roe from band of brothers showed up which i though was class even if he does play a bad guy.
Gary Olsen, played the part. He was the red haired man who attached Bill when he was in his blind convey, and then latter on he was named as Torrence after they saw the Helicopter of Coker land at the farm.
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0647653/
I actually liked the show last night
So, a very subtle role then... Did he survive his jet crashing into a city with a bunch of inflatable vests in the 1981 version?
I thought the show last night was average - Your typical safe, watered down, over processed BBC stuff. It's kind of like the cars of the early 90s where the manufacturers called in panels of people to look at their cars. Anything mentioned by anyone for any reason was removed... So most cars started being boring bars of soap...
Too many people doing too many dumb things for no reason, and generally not really acting like real people... And things being rushed around unecessarily so no real time to invest in people/situations... Are the two lead characters suppose to have feeling for each other? I have no idea it was so rush and dealt with so ham-fistedly?
Last edited:
I just watched the show, but can't really form a solid opinion. Imo the show was all over the place with too many things happening at once. I'm a big fan of the original 60's film and have only seen that but I struggled to really watch this BBC adoption.
It's a bit sad because the triffids towards the end of eps1 looked really cool in the darkness, and very scary.
It's a bit sad because the triffids towards the end of eps1 looked really cool in the darkness, and very scary.
I watched it and quite enjoyed it, entertaining enough, some silly moments and plot elements but the way they did it seemed to work quite well for me.
Looking forward to seeing tonight's episode
Oh no's, does that mean i'm not a sheep.
Looking forward to seeing tonight's episode
Oh no's, does that mean i'm not a sheep.
The 1957 BBC radio play wipes the floor with any of the televised versions.
Along with the rest of Wyndham's classics: The Kraken Awakes, The Midwich Cuckoos (AKA village of the damned), The Chrysalids, Chocky.....All infinitely better on the radio.
Along with the rest of Wyndham's classics: The Kraken Awakes, The Midwich Cuckoos (AKA village of the damned), The Chrysalids, Chocky.....All infinitely better on the radio.
Last edited:
Dare I say it, the book itself is very good, a great alternative to the current showing.
LOL, no! In the 1981 version he has no back story; IIRC his origins are unexplained, just like in the book. Pointless and irrelevant novelties like a pile of inflatable vests in a plane toilet should be immediately recognisable as something so dumb they can only be the product of the 21st century.
This is a direct consequence of deviating from the plot and failing to follow the original pacing.
Yes, the two lead characters do become romantically involved in the book. It's probably the one thing they've got right.
It's arguable more rushed in the book as well with Josela (as she is called in the book) playing the weak women who falls into Bills arms straight away.
As it's been pointed out, TV isn't the same as it was in the 60's things need to be quick, and there is no time for building plots. We have seen with countless series that have failed in the early stages due to failed ratings.
As it's been pointed out, TV isn't the same as it was in the 60's things need to be quick, and there is no time for building plots. We have seen with countless series that have failed in the early stages due to failed ratings.
That's the whole point: things don't need to be quick, and there is time for building plots.
The trouble today is lazy producers and scriptwriters who can't be bothered spending time, effort and money on a decent script. Just look at Doctor Who: reduced to single and double episode features instead of the five or six episode stories of the past. And guess what? It doesn't work. There's no tension, no buildup, no cliffhanger, no character development, no drama. The entire plot has to be flat-packed and squeezed into a tiny space, so everything needs to happen at once.
The trouble today is lazy producers and scriptwriters who can't be bothered spending time, effort and money on a decent script. Just look at Doctor Who: reduced to single and double episode features instead of the five or six episode stories of the past. And guess what? It doesn't work. There's no tension, no buildup, no cliffhanger, no character development, no drama. The entire plot has to be flat-packed and squeezed into a tiny space, so everything needs to happen at once.
Last edited:
Jezz, what a miserable bunch you lot are. Guess what, it's not 1981 or even 1957. Get over it. If you don't like it turn the TV off and do something more interesting instead.
It's not as if anyone forced you to watch or there aren't many many other things you could be doing.
It's not as if anyone forced you to watch or there aren't many many other things you could be doing.