The Day Of The Triffids to return to BBC next year
- Thread starter msmalls74
- Start date
Listened to the '57 radio series again last night, hearing people fall down the stairs or people jumping out of 5th story windows in the hospital spooked me out as I had the lights out for extra effect.
Oh, and it has one of the best "I'M BLIND...I'M BLIND!!!!!!" soundbites ever, it's a pity ytmnd.com is out of vogue as I would have sampled it and stuck it on there along with those pictures of Joely Richardson.
I laughed my ass of at the bit where Mason finds a bar where the tender is blind, the tender kept on picking up bottles, tasting them and ditching them if they weren't whiskey.
The tender ends up with some port, spits it out and chucks the bottle, you hear glass smash, then mason walks in:
Bill: "Hello, are you open?"
Tender: "I've just smashed the window haven't I?, of course I'm bloomin open!"
Genius.
[edit]I forgot to mention that the original radio series was done live, no pre-recording, editing and digital effects, just a bunch of talented people with microphones, a script, a foley effects table and a "LIVE" light above the door.
Same with the rest of the classics like Charles Chilton's "Journey Into Space" and James Follett's "Earthsearch".
[/edit]
Oh, and it has one of the best "I'M BLIND...I'M BLIND!!!!!!" soundbites ever, it's a pity ytmnd.com is out of vogue as I would have sampled it and stuck it on there along with those pictures of Joely Richardson.
I laughed my ass of at the bit where Mason finds a bar where the tender is blind, the tender kept on picking up bottles, tasting them and ditching them if they weren't whiskey.
The tender ends up with some port, spits it out and chucks the bottle, you hear glass smash, then mason walks in:
Bill: "Hello, are you open?"
Tender: "I've just smashed the window haven't I?, of course I'm bloomin open!"
Genius.
[edit]I forgot to mention that the original radio series was done live, no pre-recording, editing and digital effects, just a bunch of talented people with microphones, a script, a foley effects table and a "LIVE" light above the door.
Same with the rest of the classics like Charles Chilton's "Journey Into Space" and James Follett's "Earthsearch".
[/edit]
Last edited:
Keep going, you're doing yourself wonders
Quoting misunderstandings and mistakes over and over like you know what you're talking about...
Calling a classic, much loved work of science fiction crap...
Having a pop at people who enjoy the book and 1981 series, even when you admit not having read it, or recall watching it...
Admit it, you actually have little or no idea what your talking about, but just enjoy having an argument even though in reality you have nothing to argue about. Can't quite understand why you're behaving this way!?
"Classic" and "much-loved" are completely different to "good", and it's quite possible to be popular and poor: just look at Dan Brown's sales figures. DotT is famous mainly because it crossed out of the SF ghetto into the mainstream, not because it's a good book. In fact it's at best a mediocre book. It's not the best EotW book; it's not even Wyndham's best book. No-one knows why some books (and some films) become popular: if they did, everyone would be at it, and it's what produces the vast swathes of copy-cat stuff after a break-out hit. But the one thing that is not required is for the thing in question to be good - if anything that counts against it. The book has one good idea (a world gone blind) which gets rather under-used. And in any case it let down by Wyndham's rather lack-lustre "style" (that's in inverted commas because it's not really interesting enough to be a style in the true sense).
M
Are you suggesting it is 'crap' though? Because that's the question in hand?
As you suggest, 'Good' is subjective matter - I'm sure some people watch this weeks 'interpretation' of it and enjoyed it, and other prefer the 1981 BBC adaptation, which of course is all fine.
But, the question/point is revolving around dmpoole:-
a) Suggesting basically anything to do with The Day of the Triffids is 'crap', when he's admits never having read the book, not remembering the 1981 TV series, and onyl having watching this weeks somewhat limp re-invisagement.
b) Misquoting information/storylines out of the book/series to back up his argument.
c) Have a somewhat cheap dig/pop at anyone who seems to holds the book/original TV series in any sort of esteem.
As for, "The book has one good idea (a world gone blind) which gets rather under-used," I'd have to disagree. There a good number of ideas in there. If we take just the polarised views of the surviving groups in London, that was covered quite nicely in the book/1981 TV series, but almost completely side stepped (unfortunately) by this weeks version.
Anyway, the point at hand here is dmpoole's pig headed (ignorant) attitude in this thread... He seemed to be quite merilly popping away at folks, so I though I'd pick him up on it.
Last edited:
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 29 Mar 2003
- Posts
- 57,626
- Location
- Stoke on Trent
I'm not having a pop at people who enjoyed the book or original film & re-issue but no matter how much tinsel you wrap it up in, it is a crap story.
To then say the 2009 re-issue is rubbish is tantamount to being dafter than a brush.
Man eating plants is rubbish but man eating plants that actually 'walk' is getting into the territory of far fetched even for my imagination.
Last edited:
You didn't have a "pop"? Out of the blue you come up with:-
Let's face it, it's about plants eating people, how much crapper can it get? To take the original as a work of art and say the remake has spoiled it makes me wonder about some people.
No one was of course pronouncing it a work of art, but you suggested this strawman solely to get your little misconcieved dig in...
Of course your main sin here is describing (yet again) a story you've not read and cannot recollent as "crap"... Utterly uneccessary!?
Worse still, you simply use a polarised system where you toss the whole work out of the window (as "crap") because of the scienfiction-leap-of-faith it takes - it is a work of science fiction remember! And as such some leap of faith is required to allow it to enter this alternative reality.
Using this daft approach - where you refuse the simple leap of faith most science fiction uses to separate itself from reality - you condemn almost all science fiction to your "crap" bin:-
- The Matrix: People don't produce that amount of energy? - "Crap"
- Star Wars: Supernatural powers and ships that fly like planes in space? - "Crap"
- Terminator: It needs flesh around its metal to allow it to be transported? - "Crap"
The leap of faith "The Day of the Triffids" asks of the reader is not large:-
a) Genetically engineering plants that can move (slowly) and which has a stinger - Yes, implausable, but not outlandish.
b) A comet/meteor shower produces some effect that damages the eyes of those watching it - Yes, implausable, but no outlandish.
By all means, continue with your bizarre war again a piece of fiction you've not read, and cannot recollect, it's intriguing. What other (classic) works haven't you read that you'll describe as "crap" next
Last edited:
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 29 Mar 2003
- Posts
- 57,626
- Location
- Stoke on Trent
By all means, continue with your bizarre war again a piece of fiction you've not read, and cannot recollect, it's intriguing. What other (classic) works haven't you read that you'll describe as "crap" next
Right, I've just zipped through the original film which I have seen countless times.
How does this original film differ from the book?
What makes the book sooooooooo much better than the film?
Where did they destroy the book in the original film?
I'm intrigued how they got it so wrong in the original film and subsequent remakes.
Oh yeah, right at the start of the original film it said the Triffids came on a meteor.
Last edited:
The 'original film'?
1) What are we talking about? The 1962 film?
2) If so, why have you brought that into the conversation? Other to show yet further how unfair/unfounded your opinion/comments are? You've not read the book you're condemning, you don't recall the 1982 TV series you're condemning, and now you've just 'zipped' through a film in a couple of minutes - which I certainly have never mentioned - and passed comment on it? Still true to form I see!
If we try and at least stick to something of relevance, say the 1982 TV series and then this weeks remake?:-
1) No one is particularly having a go at the modern remake from wondering away from the original story.
2) What people are having problems with is how bad the new story/premise is it has concocted for itself. Look earler in this thread and you'll see people reeling off countless silly/daft issues with the new version which just push the suspense of disbelief too far, to beyond the point of breaking for most folk. This is just down to poor writing really.
If we assume the reader/watch is willing to give the book/series/film a couple of 'leaps of faith':-
1) The genetically modified/created Triffids
2) A comet/meteor show causing blindness
The original book/1982 TV series then follows a fairly believable journey with event that can believed without any (further) large leaps of faith.
This moden adaption though, just asks for more and more leaps of faith as it shows us daft events and characters doing daft things.
This is the crux of what people are saying I believe.
And then you jump in and a start passing judgement on the original book and 1982 TV series you haven't even read or can recall, and comdemning people for suggesting the original book, or 1982 TV series was possibly better/more solid. Understand why I (& others) have picked you up on this?
Last edited:
What would you suggest is?
Don't know about book, but "The Road" is coming out at the cinema in a few weeks and is getting very good reviews...
Interesting... Got the book, but not read it as waiting to see the flick first...
It's probably the scariest book I've ever read.
Until you've read it, I suggest that you withhold judgement.
The Triffids in the book are slow, sure, but they have a very good reach, are resilient and vastly outnumber any capable opponents. Hell, the end of the book has the British Isles completely overtaken by them.
The book is about more than just monster plants, it's about humanity's struggle when society breaks down, when there's no food or water, when the wrong people take charge, and so on.
It is an excellent book.
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 29 Mar 2003
- Posts
- 57,626
- Location
- Stoke on Trent
So basically it is a really stupid story whether it's the book, original film, 82 series or 2009 remake.
So we have -
1) The genetically modified/created Triffids that can eat people and move
2) A comet/meteor shower that just so happens to cause blindness during the Triffids uprise.
I enjoyed the original film (which I re-watched this afternoon) and I enjoyed the remake.
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.
The difference between genetically modified in Russia or coming on a meteor should not make the story less viable - it's a daft story but one that I can enjoy either way.
I just hate the upper class mentality on these forums when it comes to remakes.
It occurs to me, watching this new one just now, that in this the Triffids are indeed genetically engineered and are confined to living in farms. In the book the Triffids just turned up and started growing. No one knew where they came from, and the book makes this point clear. In the book they are also located everywhere, not just in farms, though most have their stings removed. However, the stings are left in when the Triffids are farmed for oil as this gives better production results.
As someone said above, the book requires precisely two suspensions of disbelief:
1) Triffids appeared from somewhere
2) An event of some kind blinds a lot of people
Everything then flows from there. The story is about the results of those things, not about studying the plausibility of their occurring in the first place. Of course it's absurd to have killer plants, and yes, a blinding meteor shower is improbable but - the book asks - what would happen if those things did occur.
I'm only an hour into the current iteration of the story, but it doesn't feel right. I don't like the terrorist angle in particular. Eddie Izzard is also horribly miscast - I wish people would stop using him. He's far too distinctive to be used in anything approaching a serious role. He just sounds like Eddie Izzard doing his James Mason impression or something.
EDIT: I would also argue that remakes are, by and large, much worse than the originals, in the same way that most cover versions of songs are generally much worse.
As someone said above, the book requires precisely two suspensions of disbelief:
1) Triffids appeared from somewhere
2) An event of some kind blinds a lot of people
Everything then flows from there. The story is about the results of those things, not about studying the plausibility of their occurring in the first place. Of course it's absurd to have killer plants, and yes, a blinding meteor shower is improbable but - the book asks - what would happen if those things did occur.
I'm only an hour into the current iteration of the story, but it doesn't feel right. I don't like the terrorist angle in particular. Eddie Izzard is also horribly miscast - I wish people would stop using him. He's far too distinctive to be used in anything approaching a serious role. He just sounds like Eddie Izzard doing his James Mason impression or something.
EDIT: I would also argue that remakes are, by and large, much worse than the originals, in the same way that most cover versions of songs are generally much worse.
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 29 Mar 2003
- Posts
- 57,626
- Location
- Stoke on Trent
Wiki says :
The book implies they were bioengineered in the Soviet Union and then accidentally released into the wild when a plane carrying their seeds is shot down. Triffids begin sprouting all over the world, and their extracts prove to be superior to existing vegetable oils. The result is worldwide cultivation of Triffids.
Not as though this distracts from an awful but enjoyable story in the first place.
And I think you'll find most people hate blind ignorance...
You're wasting your time... He just unable to process this sort of rational considered argument.
Now you've done a wikipedia search, as well as fast forwarding through the 1962 film? Wow you really do know your stuff!