I didn't remember the book from the title (quite normal for me - I've read a lot of her novels, but tend to forget them until I start reading them again, and realise I've read them before. So I didn't know that it wasn't a Miss Marple novel until I read people saying so in the recent Orient Express thread).
Now its started, I do remember it, and see its very different from the original - not just the shoe-horning in of Miss Marple, but in just about every aspect.
But, to be honest it doesn't really bother me. I haven't got a great deal invested in the authenticity of Miss Marple, so its OK. I could see how it would annoy a die-hard Christie/Marple fan, 'though.
Not read the book, but in the Seven Dials Mystery Lord Caterham appears to be still living at chimneys with his daughter Bundle, he does not seem to have been involved in the murder that had taken place there previously, although it was menioned. I got the impression he was not there at the time.
This was awful. The story was all over the place. I wouldn't have minded having Miss Marple in it, because I'm not an absolute purist, but all the characters were different to how I remembered them. If they wanted to do The Secret of Chimneys, why didn't they just do it?
I don't know who writes this stuff, it's certainly not Agatha Christie.
I haven't watched any of these since the first one. It really annoys me that the writers, some unknowns, think they can write a better plot than Agatha Christie. How far up yourself do you need to be to think that?
I watched the first hour and found the story really impossible to follow so turned over for Charlie Brooker.
What finished me off was the mystery of the girl who was meant to have stolen the diamond being 'solved' by someone who had been around at the time and knew exactly what had happened to her!
And having had to go out of the room for two minutes to mash some potatoes I never did work out who Ruth Jones' character was meant to be up to the point I changed channels.
I didn't really follow it either as my family chatted throughout.
What did the people in those days do with their time? The daughter was supposed to be 23 and didn't work or do housework or study anything or have to go to the supermarket etc?
Hatfield House for the exterior and Knebworth for the interior.
This was shockingly bad. The story was poor - why pretend it was a Christies story when it wasn't? The actors seemed to be acting in their own little world. It wouldn't have surprised me if they had filmed their scenes separately and then put it all together on computer so disconnected were the characters and performances. Edward Fox, Charlotte Salt and Dervla Kirwan were from the same family? Really? They didn't seem to be acting in the same era.
I already knew that Miss Marple doesnt appear in the book but when I looked up a summary of the plot I was amazed at how different the TV version was. Some characters have the same names as in the book but the plot is totally different in every way. ITV just latched on to the Christie brand so they could flog it to the USA. Presumably the people responsible for Agatha Christie's 'brand' are quite happy to take money for the mutilation of her book.
It was okay. Nicely filmed and acted, but I couldn't really follow the plot. I've noticed this a lot with things over the past few years, and I think it could have something to do with the fact that the people who direct and edit programmes have such an intimate knowledge of the plot that they can't step away from it and put themselves in the viewers' position. Maybe they need to employ someone who is deliberately kept away from script meetings, with the job of watching the thing as it's assembled in the editing room.
It was a beautiful house, though. I'm surprised they could find a house with real secret passages that fitted the plot.
I already knew that Miss Marple doesnt appear in the book but when I looked up a summary of the plot I was amazed at how different the TV version was. Some characters have the same names as in the book but the plot is totally different in every way. ITV just latched on to the Christie brand so they could flog it to the USA. Presumably the people responsible for Agatha Christie's 'brand' are quite happy to take money for the mutilation of her book.
It does seem that the Christie estate couldn't care less. However, the Poirot stories seem to follow the original stories a little more closely (also discussed on the recent Murder on the Orient Express" thread
I already knew that Miss Marple doesnt appear in the book but when I looked up a summary of the plot I was amazed at how different the TV version was. Some characters have the same names as in the book but the plot is totally different in every way. ITV just latched on to the Christie brand so they could flog it to the USA. Presumably the people responsible for Agatha Christie's 'brand' are quite happy to take money for the mutilation of her book.
Chimneys was as badly received in the US as it was here, and for the same reasons - storyline and miscast actors.
The Blue Geranium which is being shown tomorrow night on ITV1 was much better received in the US (both were shown earlier this year). Maybe ITV knew Chimneys was bad and scheduled it expecting everyone to be watching Upstairs Downstairs or the football.
This was awful. The story was all over the place. I wouldn't have minded having Miss Marple in it, because I'm not an absolute purist, but all the characters were different to how I remembered them. If they wanted to do The Secret of Chimneys, why didn't they just do it? I don't know who writes this stuff, it's certainly not Agatha Christie.
I might not watch The Blue Geranium.
A lot of the Christies that appeared in the 1920s weren't really detective stories [her trademark], but a sort of espionage caper many of which featured a couple called Tommy and Tuppence. As these charaters never caught on, the Marple or Poirot substition reflects the TV company's view that these were far from vintage Christie. I read most of her novels except for the late ones from late 60s and early 70s when her powerws were in steep decline. The TV companies should follow suit I think, and stick to the real Marples and Poirots.
This was awful. The story was all over the place. I wouldn't have minded having Miss Marple in it, because I'm not an absolute purist, but all the characters were different to how I remembered them. If they wanted to do The Secret of Chimneys, why didn't they just do it?
I don't know who writes this stuff, it's certainly not Agatha Christie.
I might not watch The Blue Geranium.
I'd give that a go. It definitely better than this imo.
Chimneys was as badly received in the US as it was here, and for the same reasons - storyline and miscast actors.
The Blue Geranium which is being shown tomorrow night on ITV1 was much better received in the US (both were shown earlier this year). Maybe ITV knew Chimneys was bad and scheduled it expecting everyone to be watching Upstairs Downstairs or the football.
A lot of the Christies that appeared in the 1920s weren't really detective stories [her trademark], but a sort of espionage caper many of which featured a couple called Tommy and Tuppence. As these charaters never caught on, the Marple or Poirot substition reflects the TV company's view that these were far from vintage Christie. I read most of her novels except for the late ones from late 60s and early 70s when her powerws were in steep decline. The TV companies should follow suit I think, and stick to the real Marples and Poirots.
But the Tuppence and Tommy stories could be good and popular if they were set in the right era and done with a sense of fun.
There are the Harley Quin books too, a bit more supernatural and eerie.
I don't actually mind if Miss Marple or Poirot are shoehorned into a book they weren't in originally - I know they have to make films which appeal to the audience, but why change a story totally when it's perfectly all right as it is?
I haven't seen The Blue Geranium and can't really remember the story, i know ive read the book its in but can't remember it, so will probably watch it same with the Mirror Cracked which is on next week.
But the Tuppence and Tommy stories could be good and popular if they were set in the right era and done with a sense of fun.
There are the Harley Quin books too, a bit more supernatural and eerie.
I don't actually mind if Miss Marple or Poirot are shoehorned into a book they weren't in originally - I know they have to make films which appeal to the audience, but why change a story totally when it's perfectly all right as it is?
They showed some of the old series a few months ago (with Francesca Annis as Tuppence) on ITV3 IIRC. They were certainly made with a sense of fun, but its so long since I read any of the books that I dont know how close to the original they were. They were stylishly dressed, but I dont think much money was spent on the production.
Edit: Oops, I hadn't read Verence's post when I posted this.
Comments
Now its started, I do remember it, and see its very different from the original - not just the shoe-horning in of Miss Marple, but in just about every aspect.
But, to be honest it doesn't really bother me. I haven't got a great deal invested in the authenticity of Miss Marple, so its OK. I could see how it would annoy a die-hard Christie/Marple fan, 'though.
I don't know who writes this stuff, it's certainly not Agatha Christie.
I might not watch The Blue Geranium.
Anyone care to pm me whodunnit?
What finished me off was the mystery of the girl who was meant to have stolen the diamond being 'solved' by someone who had been around at the time and knew exactly what had happened to her!
And having had to go out of the room for two minutes to mash some potatoes I never did work out who Ruth Jones' character was meant to be up to the point I changed channels.
What did the people in those days do with their time? The daughter was supposed to be 23 and didn't work or do housework or study anything or have to go to the supermarket etc?
Hatfield House for the exterior and Knebworth for the interior.
This was shockingly bad. The story was poor - why pretend it was a Christies story when it wasn't? The actors seemed to be acting in their own little world. It wouldn't have surprised me if they had filmed their scenes separately and then put it all together on computer so disconnected were the characters and performances. Edward Fox, Charlotte Salt and Dervla Kirwan were from the same family? Really? They didn't seem to be acting in the same era.
It was a beautiful house, though. I'm surprised they could find a house with real secret passages that fitted the plot.
It does seem that the Christie estate couldn't care less. However, the Poirot stories seem to follow the original stories a little more closely (also discussed on the recent Murder on the Orient Express" thread
Chimneys was as badly received in the US as it was here, and for the same reasons - storyline and miscast actors.
The Blue Geranium which is being shown tomorrow night on ITV1 was much better received in the US (both were shown earlier this year). Maybe ITV knew Chimneys was bad and scheduled it expecting everyone to be watching Upstairs Downstairs or the football.
A lot of the Christies that appeared in the 1920s weren't really detective stories [her trademark], but a sort of espionage caper many of which featured a couple called Tommy and Tuppence. As these charaters never caught on, the Marple or Poirot substition reflects the TV company's view that these were far from vintage Christie. I read most of her novels except for the late ones from late 60s and early 70s when her powerws were in steep decline. The TV companies should follow suit I think, and stick to the real Marples and Poirots.
I'd give that a go. It definitely better than this imo.
I thought it was a three part documentary series on BBC4
OK, you've persuaded me.
But the Tuppence and Tommy stories could be good and popular if they were set in the right era and done with a sense of fun.
There are the Harley Quin books too, a bit more supernatural and eerie.
I don't actually mind if Miss Marple or Poirot are shoehorned into a book they weren't in originally - I know they have to make films which appeal to the audience, but why change a story totally when it's perfectly all right as it is?
Like in this series??
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agatha_Christie%27s_Partners_in_Crime
They showed some of the old series a few months ago (with Francesca Annis as Tuppence) on ITV3 IIRC. They were certainly made with a sense of fun, but its so long since I read any of the books that I dont know how close to the original they were. They were stylishly dressed, but I dont think much money was spent on the production.
Edit: Oops, I hadn't read Verence's post when I posted this.