Not enough chimney sweeps?
See your analysis and insight is up to its usual high quality. 3hrs summarised in two words...! What did you think worked well, and what didn't? Try using some big words to impress us
Last edited:
The Day Of The Triffids to return to BBC next year
- Thread starter msmalls74
- Start date
Not enough chimney sweeps?
See your analysis and insight is up to its usual high quality. 3hrs summarised in two words...! What did you think worked well, and what didn't? Try using some big words to impress us
I salute you! You have stamina.
I watched 30 seconds of one and, no thanks.
Wow! Book... Cover... Most folks see it as the best adaptation of the book. Which I agree with...
You obviously have to give it a bit of leeway for the budget and being 30yrs old - But still an outstanding bit of apocalyptic TV
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0081850/
Last edited:
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 29 Mar 2003
- Posts
- 57,622
- Location
- Stoke on Trent
See your analysis and insight is up to its usual high quality. 3hrs summarised in two words...! What did you think worked well, and what didn't? Try using some big words to impress us
Apologies but we can't all be well educated as you.
Anyway, my summary -
It's got the worst opening titles EVER in a series which nearly put me off.
The acting was dreadful and you didn't actually see much of The Triffids during 3 hours but they were crap too.
All you needed to do to kill them was cut them in half with a bread knife.
I thought the main characters voice-over explained more than the original film and 2009 remake.
Did I mention the awful acting - it could have been Dick Van Dyke as a cockney chimney sweep.
Did this series have more than 10 viewers I wonder?
It had a lot lot lot more than 10 viewers. It was one of the biggest ratings shows of its year. Its also probably one of (if not the) best adaptation of the book.
Mind you, a lot of viewers today would find it dull, cheesy and boring. Then again a lot of viewers today would snort at other classic shows like Blakes Seven.
Sadly the art of story telling has died in the last few years and has been replaced by retina candy CGI and fast paced drivel.
LOL! The opening titles? I think they are actually very haunting and effective. And you actually care about them enough to take them into account when considering the central piece? Odd!
I wouldn't say the acting was dreadful. Not fabulous at times, but certainly not bad. But I guess your description seems to fit into the binary approach you seem to have to things...
I feel the triffids in the 1981 adaptation were better than the modern one. Far more believable and consistent. Followed simple believable rules and were actually designed by someone from the Natural History Museum to adhere/resemble real plants where possible.
I see, even with an effort, you really just cannot construct any considered fair and clear points for or against this series, or indeed the 1962 film, or the modern remake. It's all just black and white shallow reactions. I guess then this level of understanding and attention span explains a lot about your general posts in this thread...
Well done for trying though... Been very insightful.
Last edited:
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 29 Mar 2003
- Posts
- 57,622
- Location
- Stoke on Trent
Now I know you're trolling.
For suggesting the 1981 adaptation offered a more believable version of events and behaviour than the 2009 version? There's a lot of trolls in this thread thead.
And suggesting I'm a troll, coming from someone who described a classic work of science fiction (he's never read) as "crap", and who furthermore had a dig at individuals who suggested the 1981 TV adaptation might be superior to the 2009 one, even though they'd (apparantly) not seen the 1981 version, comes across as rather amusing in my book
But it's of course completely consistent with your somewhat random behaviour in this thread.After numerous attempts, you seem utterly unable to offer a coherant or well formed point or argument. And no, saying the 1981 series was rubbish because you didn't like the title/intro isn't really one.
After numerous attempts, you seem utterly unable to absorb well formed points or arguments made by your fellow posters. For example, look through this thread, there have been countless individuals who have offered example after example where the modern adaptation repeatedly trips over due to issues of "believability", but you simply seem unable to fathom their comments/points. You seriously don't see chimney-sweep-Izzard as an appalling/weak piece of writing do you?
Numerous people - no one more than myself - have tried to rationally chat with you about it, but it seems impossible. I think I really need to follow those other individuals example, and give up...
ps: I of course have no problem if someone enjoys the new adaptation more than the 1981 one; If you recall my initial issues with your comments was simply the fact you were condemning something (as being "crap") that you'd never even read/seen. Then beyond that, it's the fact you seem to hold up the 2009 adaptation as being far superior to the 1981 version, when the modern adaption demonstrated some aspects of modern TV making that many people are coming to loathe, but which you seem utterly blind to. Worse still you then seem unable to really to understand peoples opinion, or worse still explain your own. Instead you throw binary opinions out, condemning entire 2-3hr pieces of media with just a couple of words (childish insults).
Last edited:
I've just finished watching the recent adaptation. It didn't impress me. The characters didn't seem under threat from the triffids while at the house, which is in stark contrast to the book. There was the stupid plan to stop them sporing - must have some sort of "hope" in a TV show, can't just deal in desperation and making do. The way of escaping was stupid, with the poison in the eyes thing. The series as a whole didn't focus enough on the different ideas that the factions had to get through things.
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 29 Mar 2003
- Posts
- 57,622
- Location
- Stoke on Trent
blah blah blah,
What you can't grasp is that I said the story is crap and not believable in the slightest although you seem to think it is - plants that can walk, talk, think and eat people then all of a sudden a meteor shower makes almost everybody blind.
No I didn't read the book but the basic story (no matter how it goes off tangent in each film) is still an unbelievably poor story.
You also seem unable to grasp that I actually enjoyed the original film, 81 remake and 2009 remake because I like watching rubbish and as soon as I started to watch them I remembered the originals.
How you can keep defending a very poor story is beyond me although like a 1000 other films with poor stories I still enjoyed.
Next you'll be telling me Dr Who is real.
I think they tried to handle the difference of opinions with the addition of the human sacrifice with the Nunn's. And interesting addition, but the whole fight between the 2 factions could have been handled better such as in the 81 series.
The two points you mention, the triffids, and the meteor shower have been talked about (to you) a number of times by myself and others - but you clearly didn't grasp it (I've said you have a problem on this front, and you continue to demonstrate it). But I'll try again...
Any work of science-fiction will most lilkely require some sort of leap of faith:-
Terminator - Time Travel and AI robots can exist, and you strangely need flesh around things to time travel
Star Wars - Spaceships can fly like planes that disobey the laws of physics and magical superpowers exist
In the case of Day of the Triffids, the leaps of faith are actually relatively small compared to many other works:-
Triffids - Genetically created plant that can drag itself along, and uses a stinger to kill prey.
Meteor Shower - Some sort of event occurs that damages people retinas.
These leaps of faith are of course far-fetched and somewhat unrealistic, but consider almost any work of science fiction, and they are no more outlandish, and most likely less far fetched.
Now it seems when you keep attacking "the story" over and over, you are infact attacking these leaps-of-faith. This is somewhat daft for the very reason(s) I've just covered in the past paragraph or two.
Now, what is more important, is that once you've taken these two simple leaps of faith, the rest of the events are what matter, this is the true story - something you seem unable to graps, as you've not talked about it at all. You're just fixated on "triffids" and "meteors" and never discuss or talk about any of the true story/event.
Furthermore, you also repeatedly mis-undestand people qualms with "believability" as regards the 81 vs 09 versions. Again you apply your "triffid" and "meteor" fixation, where infact no one else is talking about that. Both versions require those same leaps of faith, but the 09 then requires nonsense like:-
- Believing Eddie Izzard can survive a plane crashing into a city at X hundred miles an hour in a jumbo jet with a couple of life vests around him, emerging from the wreckage looking like a chimney sweep.
- The same plane just happens to cash next to, and ontop of (in all the world) the main two characters of the story.
- Characters wonder into dangerous scenarios with little or no real consideration for their well being. eg: Why cart Mason and Coker mile and mile away in the back of a truck to then kill them? What's wrong with a back alley? Other than to allow the Triffids to get involved? Why stand by a fence waiting for triffids to kill you while you can see this happening to your very own colleagues. Walk backwards 10ft!
- Ninja triffids? Attacking from trees? They just happen to be up in the right trees at the right time? Or do triffids nest up in trees for the night generally?
- Why not use X tonne vehicles to get away from triffids, rather than die. As demonstrated in the final scenes.
- Let's not go into all the silly hokum about triffid recordings and wooden voodoo masks etc.
Sure there were issues in the original book and 1981 adaptation, but not so many, and none so glaring.
I'm wasting my effort I know, you'll go back to your childish dismissive rhetoric, unable to see the difference between for example the 1981 and 2009 versions...
I really do feel I'm battling against blind-ignorance/stupidy here. Trying to rationally talk to someone who calls a book they've not read and know little/nothing about "crap". Someone who even after spending some time attacking a book comes out with a question like this (just on the previous page of this thread):-
So everybody in the original book was blind?
But give me credit for trying... Fool that I am...
So let's see if we can make some small positive move forwards. Given you've now watched the 1981 adaptation, and the 2009 adaptation. Can you see what people are referring to regarding the merits/failings of "believability" regarding the two. How the 1981 version doesn't really require much more than the leaps of faith discussed (above)? But how the 2009 one requires so many many more by the viewer to accept what the story shows event/character behaviour wise? Triffids up in trees? People walking out of planes crashing into cities? People standing just waiting to die rather than using their ability to walk backwards?
Last edited:
The idea of 'offering' victims/food to the triffids to placate them was sort of nice, but lost in the muddle of the already busy story - as you suggest.
Felt like a lot of things changed, were just changed for the sake of it, rather than for a +ve reason/effect.
Last edited:
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 29 Mar 2003
- Posts
- 57,622
- Location
- Stoke on Trent
You took that out of context - I was taking the mick out of Evangelion.
I knew everybody wasn't blind but he insinuated they were in his original post and then gave another answer for those that could see.
It is pointless, you go on believing it is some 'work of art' where I will go on believing it was a stupid story made into 3 watchable film adaptions.
And no, I don't give a damn about one being more believable than the other.
Where did I, or anyone say, "work of art", or anything like that?
"And no, I don't give a damn about one being more believable than the other." - I think this rates right up there with your initial comment(s) that started all this off, calling a book you'd never read, and really knew (know) nothing about, "crap". You've finished where you started... You're right, it is pointless
Personally I think they added some interesting things to the story, like the Religious group, the effects, the background of his parents, and some of the other things they added didn't work.
I found it watchable, but certainly not an improvement over the '81 series. If you could have combine the higher production vales of the new version, the CGI, and the story of the original it would have been ace!
I do wonder what effect the editing had on sections of the story, it seemed like bits had been chopped out.
Survivors is back on on Tuesday night.
Soldato
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 12,050
- Location
- Manchester
I watched about 3/4 of the first episode and couldn't bear to watch another second of this utter tripe. To say it was poor would be an understatement.
Funnily enough there are already plants on our planet which communicate with each other, even more bizarre though is that there are also plants which move by themselves by dragging themselves around. At a snails pace though. Watched a documentary about then on the national geography channel.
So those two aspects are a little more believable than most people think. Admittedly though i cant think of any that actively hunt humans
So those two aspects are a little more believable than most people think. Admittedly though i cant think of any that actively hunt humans
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 29 Mar 2003
- Posts
- 57,622
- Location
- Stoke on Trent
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.