I'm quite liking Demelza actually. It is hard as Rees was so ingrained in my psyche as her (even when reading the books i 'saw' her if that makes sense) but she is growing on me. I'm pleasantly surprised by Turner who i've never rated that highly despite having loved Being Human. Also very much missing Ralph Bates as George but other than that.
Francis is coming across as a pain in the ++++ and the foreshadowing as to his fate is clunky in the extreme. Elisabeth, however is nowhere near as aggravating as in the original. I could never understand what they all saw in her besides obvious beauty.
In general I'm pleased they are sticking more closely to the books (which by chance i stumbled across when clearing a cupboard the other day so will reread) but they are getting through the story but i didn't expect any different in this day and age.
I agree about Francis - he is quite unlikeable in this version, with none of the charm he had in the books/OS.
Elisabeth is neither one thing or the other in this version. The original Elisabeth was very like the books, fair haired, aristocratic, self-centred and weak. I loved to hate her! This one is more likeable if you will but that rather defeats the purpose imo.
I am left wondering why they are following the books so closely in some regards - Ross and Demelza's marriage, for instance; and then on the other hand changing things regarding George Warleggan (and I agree Ralph Bates was superb in the role) and also changing Jinny and Jim's story (her being pregnant before marriage) for no good reason.
The sentences then ... make even the sentences on the back of the riots here a couple of years ago seem lenient.
Maybe I've just seen too many harrowing 'workhouse' stories in Call The Midwife, but it was hard to stop thinking about how, in sentencing Jim, the judge had sentenced his mother and sisters as well, not to mention the wife and baby.
I quite like all the galloping across cliff tops, and even the long shots of cornfields don't take me out of the story too much. What does is the way the camera seems to linger on that overcooked bug-eyed stare that Francis does whenever he's supposed to be angry. It's not even a proper scowl, and just makes me want to laugh whenever I see it even though it's almost boring holes in the front of the telly
Unfortunately nowadays most programmes with actors (dramas, sitcoms, etc) are full of action with very little background to plots. It all has to be established in the first five minutes. It could be that, because this is an unfolding story involving several threads - the artistocrats, the class system, the working classes, the judicial system at the time, the financial system, medicine at the time, e.t.c. -that viewers need to work at watching it rather than sit back and have it all presented in neat package and not expect it to be action packed.
It could have concentrated on just the relationships between the Poldark families and ignored the lives of the working class families, but because Ross chooses to involve himself in the lives of his workers, there's a lot of ground to cover in a relatively short series. It needs viewers to stop and think what life would have been like then; the poverty and how you depended on others in your village - totally different from what it is now where you can switch on a light, buy what you need from shops which are a few minutes drive by car, communicate instantly and where most people have a job with sufficient money to live on and you can live in a street for years and not even know the names of your next door neighbours.
I don't think there's anything to 'work at'. It's all fairly standard so far
I'm a big fan of these type of shows and have read a lot. Polder is enjoyable enough but not something I'm desperate to get back to each Sunday, or something I'd watch again. Having just read the book (which I wasn't impressed by) it seems to be following the source material pretty closely - so I'm inclined to say the problem (for me) lies with the original story, rather than just this interpretation of it.
I'm not picking you out in particular but there hav been a 100 or more posts in a similar vein, and I don't understand.
The character 'Demelza' is on an enormous journey from either childhood or adolescence to maturity/adulthood and being a wife. How on earth are people reducing that - either in this series or the 1970s version - to a single triat like "coltish".
Are you saying she's a coltish child or adult, are you comparing the 1970s child with the 2015 adult - the (over) simplificaton isn't making sense to me? Fwiw, I don't see 'coltish' anywhere but if you do that's fine, but where?!
The point I was trying to make is that in the 18th century 'fair' looks were very much admired among the gentry. Elizabeth epitomises the ideal of beauty at that time slim, fair skinned, blonde hair etc Demelza is supposed to contrast her by being a more earthy type, rather tanned from working outside, long limbed with dark hair. In the books Demelza changes from a waif and grows to be an attractive and striking looking woman. I was only pointing out that the Elizabeth they have chosen for this version fits more modern tastes of beauty.
I like the actress playing Demelza as she seems to have got the character well and she is certainly very pretty. Elizabeth hasn't made much of an impression as there seems to be no spark between her and Ross and she hasn't come across as a woman conscious of her 'superiority' in anyway.
I don't think there's anything to 'work at'. It's all fairly standard so far
I'm a big fan of these type of shows and have read a lot. Polder is enjoyable enough but not something I'm desperate to get back to each Sunday, or something I'd watch again. Having just read the book (which I wasn't impressed by) it seems to be following the source material pretty closely - so I'm inclined to say the problem (for me) lies with the original story, rather than just this interpretation of it.
You mean the first book of the twelve? This series is covering the first two books.
Without wishing to post spoilers, once the domestic life is sorted there's more action as the story progresses. We're in 1783–87 at the moment. The second book covers 1788–90. The story continues through to 1820, which includes a lot of historical events such conflict with France and the Napoleonic wars, in which Winston Graham inserts his characters into real situations without altering history.
I don't think there's anything to 'work at'. It's all fairly standard so far
I'm a big fan of these type of shows and have read a lot. Polder is enjoyable enough but not something I'm desperate to get back to each Sunday, or something I'd watch again. Having just read the book (which I wasn't impressed by) it seems to be following the source material pretty closely - so I'm inclined to say the problem (for me) lies with the original story, rather than just this interpretation of it.
Its odd how some people think the series follows the book closely and others (me) think that it is at times widely divergent.
How is it following the book closely? Several characters are completely different - in the book Francis is not a twit, Charles is not malevolent towards Ross, Jinny is not pregnant before marriage, Jud and Prudie are funny. Etc.
Demelza has four years in the book to get to know Ross, Elizabeth doesn't see Ross much after her marriage, the workers are not best mates with Ross - he's their boss and landlord.
Some things are the same, I grant you - the seduction scene for instance.
I get that some things have to be condensed, or maybe spelled out more clearly, for the screen, but I'm baffled as to how someone who has read the book thinks it's a pretty close adaptation.
Of course liking a book is a matter of taste. I liked it so much I went on to read the whole series of 12.
I quite like all the galloping across cliff tops, and even the long shots of cornfields don't take me out of the story too much. What does is the way the camera seems to linger on that overcooked bug-eyed stare that Francis does whenever he's supposed to be angry. It's not even a proper scowl, and just makes me want to laugh whenever I see it even though it's almost boring holes in the front of the telly
I dont why but I've hadly noticed that character. For some reason I keep seeing Elizabeth's husband and to begin with I thought you meant him! Actually, he just looks like he's going to explode or jump in the deep end at the pool.
Its odd how some people think the series follows the book closely and others (me) think that it is at times widely divergent.
How is it following the book closely? Several characters are completely different - in the book Francis is not a twit, Charles is not malevolent towards Ross, Jinny is not pregnant before marriage, Jud and Prudie are funny. Etc.
Demelza has four years in the book to get to know Ross, Elizabeth doesn't see Ross much after her marriage, the workers are not best mates with Ross - he's their boss and landlord.
Some things are the same, I grant you - the seduction scene for instance.
I get that some things have to be condensed, or maybe spelled out more clearly, for the screen, but I'm baffled as to how someone who has read the book thinks it's a pretty close adaptation.
Of course liking a book is a matter of taste. I liked it so much I went on to read the whole series of 12.
This adaptation is closer to the first book than the original series, which changed characters and events out of all recognition. For instance Demelza being a prostitute when she wasn't, and events later which didn't happen at all and were the reason why Winston Graham wanted to cancel the series and wouldn't allow the second series unless they agreed to keep more closely to his books.
Of course, we don't know if they will completely change events in what we haven't seen yet.
Admittedly Jinny wasn't pregnant when she married, but I can forgive that because they have so much to get through in a short time and needed to condense it. I couldn't agree with what they did in the first series, but which they haven't got to yet in his series when
the villagers turned on Elizabeth and George Warleggan, burning down Trenwith causing them to flee on horseback
which was an event which just didn't happen.
I'm re-reading the books now to refresh my recollections, and am just ahead of the TV broadcast. It's moving at a very slick pace out of necessity.
This adaptation is closer to the first book than the original series, which changed characters and events out of all recognition. For instance Demelza being a prostitute when she wasn't, and events later which didn't happen at all and were the reason why Winston Graham wanted to cancel the series and wouldn't allow the second series unless they agreed to keep more closely to his books.
Of course, we don't know if they will completely change events in what we haven't seen yet.
Admittedly Jinny wasn't pregnant when she married, but I can forgive that because they have so much to get through in a short time and needed to condense it. I couldn't agree with what they did in the first series, but which they haven't got to yet in his series when
the villagers turned on Elizabeth and George Warleggan, burning down Trenwith causing them to flee on horseback
which was an event which just didn't happen.
I'm re-reading the books now to refresh my recollections, and am just ahead of the TV broadcast. It's moving at a very slick pace out of necessity.
I haven't seen the original TV series, and from what I've heard I'm glad I haven't! The changes in this series annoy me (even when, as you say, I can see time considerations force alterations). I just could not bear Demelza's character being so changed. Perhaps I just love the books too much.
Its odd how some people think the series follows the book closely and others (me) think that it is at times widely divergent.
How is it following the book closely? Several characters are completely different - in the book Francis is not a twit, Charles is not malevolent towards Ross, Jinny is not pregnant before marriage, Jud and Prudie are funny. Etc.
Demelza has four years in the book to get to know Ross, Elizabeth doesn't see Ross much after her marriage, the workers are not best mates with Ross - he's their boss and landlord.
Some things are the same, I grant you - the seduction scene for instance.
I get that some things have to be condensed, or maybe spelled out more clearly, for the screen, but I'm baffled as to how someone who has read the book thinks it's a pretty close adaptation.
Of course liking a book is a matter of taste. I liked it so much I went on to read the whole series of 12.
Perhaps its because if I'm honest the characters in the book didn't leave any impression on me at all. I found them all very forgettable. The overall impression I was left with of Ross was that he drinks too much. Several posters on here mentioned Jud and Prudie were funny - which I was surprised about after reading it (of course I've only read the first book)
Some bits are different like Jinny's story, but on the whole it seems to be following the basic premise/feel of the book.
Maybe it comes from reading the book after watching some of the show - seeing it on the screen has brought a bit more life to the story, that the book lacked for me.
Of course fans of the books will feel very differently.
I think it wrong to judge a TV drama series by the book.
A book allows you to use more imagination. There are always constraints when it comes to TV productions.
But sometimes it comes down to personal perception.
I mentioned before, many years ago I enjoyed the Len Deighton book trilogy "Game, Set and Match." When later they became a TV series, all the characters were portrayed as I imagined them from the books.
Deighton didn't, so wouldn't allow the series to be repeated.
This adaptation is closer to the first book than the original series, which changed characters and events out of all recognition. For instance Demelza being a prostitute when she wasn't,
Several posters on here mentioned Jud and Prudie were funny - which I was surprised about after reading it (of course I've only read the first book)
In the second book there's a very funny chapter when Jud gets drunk and goes to chuch where he disputes how the local Saint could have floated on a millstone. I hope they keep that in.
Demelza was not a prostitute in the 1975 series. She teasingly propositioned Ross because she didn't want him to send her home - she was a kid trying to prove herself all grown up and clutching at straws. She certainly wasn't a prostitute.
He's also got a bigger chest than Demelza, she's not so much flat chested than concave!
Has just not got everything strapped down to look younger and also a girl / young woman of that age (whatever it is) would be less developed than a present day one.
Demelza was not a prostitute in the 1975 series. She teasingly propositioned Ross because she didn't want him to send her home - she was a kid trying to prove herself all grown up and clutching at straws. She certainly wasn't a prostitute.
In the original series Demelza tried to go home with him and he tried to leave her behind. She said "I'll take em off for a shillin;" in an attempt to persuade him to her with him - a prostitute.
In the book she was thirteen. In the TV series she was older because they didn't think it would be right for a man to be take in a young girl by the standards of the 1970s a they don't for the current series.
I'm not a fan of the TV series or a fan of the books. I'm a Poldark fan and a fan of Cornwall (one branch of my family came from St Just in the early/late 19th century) and was a member of the Poldark Society for quite a while.
Just rewatching the first episode of the first series again now.
Ross rescues Demelza from a beating and buys her food. She says her hair was cut off by a man who said she stole his watch. She says she didn't - it fell out of his pocket while he was dressing.
Ross gives her a lift on his horse to go home. He drops her off at the cross roads leading to her home. She wants to stay with him and says she'll "take em of for a shillin'". Ross laughs, which annoys her and she says "I've done it lots of times before and they didn't laugh." She says "Shall I take em off? It'll cost nought but a shilling." Ross asks if she can scrub and clean. She says "Eh? Haven't you got a shillin'." He asks if she'd like to go him with him and she says that will cost two. He days he's offering work, but she doesn't seem to know what he's talking about, but she agrees when he says she'll get lodgings, food and a guinea a year. He takes her to Nampara.
Says to me she's a prostitute or trying to convince Ross she is. That really annoyed Winston Graham.
Moved house and forgot to update my details with them. Then OH was ill and I had too much on my mind for a few years until he was better. Don't think the Poldark Appreciation Society is still going. There is the Winston Graham and Poldark Literary Society, but that seem just to be a forum.
If anyone's interested, shortly before his death in 2003, Winston Graham wrote a story for the Cornish magazine, Scryfa. He recounts an imaginary meeting with Demelza. If you haven't read the books or seen the previous series, then don't listen because another character is mentioned that hasn't been seen yet in the current series. It's 15 minutes long and is available on BBC iPlayer Radio for the next 18 days:
He wrote another short story called The Horse Dealer about Judd, which was available as a free PDF for download in the early 2000s, but doesn't appear to be available now.
Moved house and forgot to update my details with them. Then OH was ill and I had too much on my mind for a few years until he was better. Don't think the Poldark Appreciation Society is still going. There is the Winston Graham and Poldark Literary Society, but that seem just to be a forum.
If anyone's interested, shortly before his death in 2003, Winston Graham wrote a story for the Cornish magazine, Scryfa. He recounts an imaginary meeting with Demelza. If you haven't read the books or seen the previous series, then don't listen because another character is mentioned that hasn't been seen yet in the current series. It's 15 minutes long and is available on BBC iPlayer Radio for the next 18 days:
He wrote another short story called The Horse Dealer about Judd, which was available as a free PDF for download in the early 2000s, but doesn't appear to be available now.
Thank you so much for posting that - I'll listen to it in a bit when I have my morning coffee.
I read somewhere that, while the series was still filming, the Poldark Appreciation Society had expressed disappointment with the choice of Aidan Turner for Ross, preferring Richard Armitage. (I don't know how they feel now!) but when I looked the Society up online I couldn't find any website for them. Perhaps they are committed to 18th century ways, and don't believe in new fangled websites.:D
Comments
I agree about Francis - he is quite unlikeable in this version, with none of the charm he had in the books/OS.
Elisabeth is neither one thing or the other in this version. The original Elisabeth was very like the books, fair haired, aristocratic, self-centred and weak. I loved to hate her! This one is more likeable if you will but that rather defeats the purpose imo.
I am left wondering why they are following the books so closely in some regards - Ross and Demelza's marriage, for instance; and then on the other hand changing things regarding George Warleggan (and I agree Ralph Bates was superb in the role) and also changing Jinny and Jim's story (her being pregnant before marriage) for no good reason.
Maybe I've just seen too many harrowing 'workhouse' stories in Call The Midwife, but it was hard to stop thinking about how, in sentencing Jim, the judge had sentenced his mother and sisters as well, not to mention the wife and baby.
I quite like all the galloping across cliff tops, and even the long shots of cornfields don't take me out of the story too much. What does is the way the camera seems to linger on that overcooked bug-eyed stare that Francis does whenever he's supposed to be angry. It's not even a proper scowl, and just makes me want to laugh whenever I see it even though it's almost boring holes in the front of the telly
Demelza is a lucky bitch.
I don't think there's anything to 'work at'. It's all fairly standard so far
I'm a big fan of these type of shows and have read a lot. Polder is enjoyable enough but not something I'm desperate to get back to each Sunday, or something I'd watch again. Having just read the book (which I wasn't impressed by) it seems to be following the source material pretty closely - so I'm inclined to say the problem (for me) lies with the original story, rather than just this interpretation of it.
The point I was trying to make is that in the 18th century 'fair' looks were very much admired among the gentry. Elizabeth epitomises the ideal of beauty at that time slim, fair skinned, blonde hair etc Demelza is supposed to contrast her by being a more earthy type, rather tanned from working outside, long limbed with dark hair. In the books Demelza changes from a waif and grows to be an attractive and striking looking woman. I was only pointing out that the Elizabeth they have chosen for this version fits more modern tastes of beauty.
I like the actress playing Demelza as she seems to have got the character well and she is certainly very pretty. Elizabeth hasn't made much of an impression as there seems to be no spark between her and Ross and she hasn't come across as a woman conscious of her 'superiority' in anyway.
Without wishing to post spoilers, once the domestic life is sorted there's more action as the story progresses. We're in 1783–87 at the moment. The second book covers 1788–90. The story continues through to 1820, which includes a lot of historical events such conflict with France and the Napoleonic wars, in which Winston Graham inserts his characters into real situations without altering history.
Its odd how some people think the series follows the book closely and others (me) think that it is at times widely divergent.
How is it following the book closely? Several characters are completely different - in the book Francis is not a twit, Charles is not malevolent towards Ross, Jinny is not pregnant before marriage, Jud and Prudie are funny. Etc.
Demelza has four years in the book to get to know Ross, Elizabeth doesn't see Ross much after her marriage, the workers are not best mates with Ross - he's their boss and landlord.
Some things are the same, I grant you - the seduction scene for instance.
I get that some things have to be condensed, or maybe spelled out more clearly, for the screen, but I'm baffled as to how someone who has read the book thinks it's a pretty close adaptation.
Of course liking a book is a matter of taste. I liked it so much I went on to read the whole series of 12.
I dont why but I've hadly noticed that character. For some reason I keep seeing Elizabeth's husband and to begin with I thought you meant him! Actually, he just looks like he's going to explode or jump in the deep end at the pool.
Of course, we don't know if they will completely change events in what we haven't seen yet.
Admittedly Jinny wasn't pregnant when she married, but I can forgive that because they have so much to get through in a short time and needed to condense it. I couldn't agree with what they did in the first series, but which they haven't got to yet in his series when
which was an event which just didn't happen.
I'm re-reading the books now to refresh my recollections, and am just ahead of the TV broadcast. It's moving at a very slick pace out of necessity.
I haven't seen the original TV series, and from what I've heard I'm glad I haven't! The changes in this series annoy me (even when, as you say, I can see time considerations force alterations). I just could not bear Demelza's character being so changed. Perhaps I just love the books too much.
Perhaps its because if I'm honest the characters in the book didn't leave any impression on me at all. I found them all very forgettable. The overall impression I was left with of Ross was that he drinks too much. Several posters on here mentioned Jud and Prudie were funny - which I was surprised about after reading it (of course I've only read the first book)
Some bits are different like Jinny's story, but on the whole it seems to be following the basic premise/feel of the book.
Maybe it comes from reading the book after watching some of the show - seeing it on the screen has brought a bit more life to the story, that the book lacked for me.
Of course fans of the books will feel very differently.
A book allows you to use more imagination. There are always constraints when it comes to TV productions.
But sometimes it comes down to personal perception.
I mentioned before, many years ago I enjoyed the Len Deighton book trilogy "Game, Set and Match." When later they became a TV series, all the characters were portrayed as I imagined them from the books.
Deighton didn't, so wouldn't allow the series to be repeated.
I find this series quite watchable.
Whoa anyway, but at what age?
In the second book there's a very funny chapter when Jud gets drunk and goes to chuch where he disputes how the local Saint could have floated on a millstone. I hope they keep that in.
He's also got a bigger chest than Demelza, she's not so much flat chested than concave!
Has just not got everything strapped down to look younger and also a girl / young woman of that age (whatever it is) would be less developed than a present day one.
In the book she was thirteen. In the TV series she was older because they didn't think it would be right for a man to be take in a young girl by the standards of the 1970s a they don't for the current series.
I'm not a fan of the TV series or a fan of the books. I'm a Poldark fan and a fan of Cornwall (one branch of my family came from St Just in the early/late 19th century) and was a member of the Poldark Society for quite a while.
Ross rescues Demelza from a beating and buys her food. She says her hair was cut off by a man who said she stole his watch. She says she didn't - it fell out of his pocket while he was dressing.
Ross gives her a lift on his horse to go home. He drops her off at the cross roads leading to her home. She wants to stay with him and says she'll "take em of for a shillin'". Ross laughs, which annoys her and she says "I've done it lots of times before and they didn't laugh." She says "Shall I take em off? It'll cost nought but a shilling." Ross asks if she can scrub and clean. She says "Eh? Haven't you got a shillin'." He asks if she'd like to go him with him and she says that will cost two. He days he's offering work, but she doesn't seem to know what he's talking about, but she agrees when he says she'll get lodgings, food and a guinea a year. He takes her to Nampara.
Says to me she's a prostitute or trying to convince Ross she is. That really annoyed Winston Graham.
"I can take 'em off for a shilling". I guess it was an attack on Ross visiting Margaret.
What made you leave?
If anyone's interested, shortly before his death in 2003, Winston Graham wrote a story for the Cornish magazine, Scryfa. He recounts an imaginary meeting with Demelza. If you haven't read the books or seen the previous series, then don't listen because another character is mentioned that hasn't been seen yet in the current series. It's 15 minutes long and is available on BBC iPlayer Radio for the next 18 days:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b03yqp4r
He wrote another short story called The Horse Dealer about Judd, which was available as a free PDF for download in the early 2000s, but doesn't appear to be available now.
Thank you so much for posting that - I'll listen to it in a bit when I have my morning coffee.
I read somewhere that, while the series was still filming, the Poldark Appreciation Society had expressed disappointment with the choice of Aidan Turner for Ross, preferring Richard Armitage. (I don't know how they feel now!) but when I looked the Society up online I couldn't find any website for them. Perhaps they are committed to 18th century ways, and don't believe in new fangled websites.:D