I am not avid. Too many changes. Tommy was not married to Tuppence in the beginning. Albert was a lift boy and not a disabled scientist/ photographer. Oil skin wallet changes to tapes. Tommy is a bit of a weak willed drip. Nothing like the Tommy I have read in the books or picture in my mind.
There was also no sinking of the Luisitania. A big disappointment.
I don't mind the change of era for this adaptation (Father Brown, etc., also changed eras from the written books) but the characterisation of Tommy & Tuppence was all wrong. In the books they are both "bright young things", though they do age from book to book.
But whereas Tuppence is always portrayed as the brighter of the two, Tommy is bright enough and the 2 enjoy a good banter. David Walliams' "Tommy" comes across as dull, boring and ignorant. Is that because of a weak script, or because DW cannot act? I suspect the latter!
I've always preferred Marple to T&T, but even so this does A Christie's books no favours at all (unless of course it improves massively over the next few weeks!)
I don't mind the change of era for this adaptation (Father Brown, etc., also changed eras from the written books) but the characterisation of Tommy & Tuppence was all wrong. In the books they are both "bright young things", though they do age from book to book.
But whereas Tuppence is always portrayed as the brighter of the two, Tommy is bright enough and the 2 enjoy a good banter. David Walliams' "Tommy" comes across as dull, boring and ignorant. Is that because of a weak script, or because DW cannot act? I suspect the latter!
I've always preferred Marple to T&T, but even so this does A Christie's books no favours at all (unless of course it improves massively over the next few weeks!)
If you were a fan of the Father a Brown short stories the TV series was epically awful a parody in fact.
The TV series was more a UK version of Father Dowling, most of the stories bore absolutely no reference to the original Father Brown. Recurring characters purely from the imagination of the scriptwriters and recurring characters from the short stories made into totally different people.
If you were a fan of the Father a Brown short stories the TV series was epically awful a parody in fact.
The TV series was more a UK version of Father Dowling, most of the stories bore absolutely no reference to the original Father Brown. Recurring characters purely from the imagination of the scriptwriters and recurring characters from the short stories made into totally different people.
I know. But it was quite pleasant to watch, for me - obviously you don't agree.
I do sympathise, btw. It's awful when things you like are mangled in adaptations. I just don't have any emotional involvement in the Father Brown Stories as written, so the TV series didn't bother me.
I'm not that bothered about Tommy and Tuppence, either, but the difference is, I thought the Father Brown stories were well acted, and the characters did seem to have some personality. In this adaptation of Christie, the characters had zero charisma, especially as depicted by Walliams.
Something a bit quirky for a Sunday, and as always a bit of risk that you end up with a show that's a bit too niche for primetime, especially with DW being a bit of a marmite individual.
Its funny how so many people thought DW was terrible, I thought he was perfect for the part, no accounting for opinions hey?!
I can't stand Walliams in anything, although his plate-shaped face is odd enough to make me stare for a bit. But I quite enjoyed this, in spite of him. It was just a light little distraction for a Sunday and worked very well, IMHO, in that sense.
All of the above.
I'll admit I am not enthralled by this series, but it was entertaining enough for that slot on a Sunday evening.
I actually thought that Walliams was suitable for the part, even though I don't like him.
I was at school when I read a couple of the Tommy and Tuppence books and only vaguely remember them, but I thought that the two characters fitted well into the adaptation. and I kind of remember them this way in the books.
And I quite liked the cold war setting (but that may be because of watching recent re-runs of Foyle).
My only slight hesitation was that I actually thought that Jessica Raines looked a little old at times for the 'bright young thing' part she seemed to be playing despite also being a mum (strangely, Walliams' age didn't seem to matter). And I thought that at times she came across as a little cold.
But overall, I have a series link for this. It's not something I will rush to watch, but as a series I think it's worth recording.
I was looking forward to this , but I have to say I was bored .
it looked great and Jessica Rain was good , loved her outfits (don't usually notice the clothes ) but it felt like it should sparkle and fizz along and it just didn't .
So how big an age difference is that, as everyone's rules out Walliams as hubby material due to age difference?
20 years?
That's not actually the point. Tommy and Tuppance in this book were a combined age of 'less than 45' David would be perfect for N or M cos they're in their 40's in that one!
All of the above.
I'll admit I am not enthralled by this series, but it was entertaining enough for that slot on a Sunday evening.
I actually thought that Walliams was suitable for the part, even though I don't like him.
I was at school when I read a couple of the Tommy and Tuppence books and only vaguely remember them, but I thought that the two characters fitted well into the adaptation. and I kind of remember them this way in the books.
And I quite liked the cold war setting (but that may be because of watching recent re-runs of Foyle).
My only slight hesitation was that I actually thought that Jessica Raines looked a little old at times for the 'bright young thing' part she seemed to be playing despite also being a mum (strangely, Walliams' age didn't seem to matter). And I thought that at times she came across as a little cold.
But overall, I have a series link for this. It's not something I will rush to watch, but as a series I think it's worth recording.
I have just watched it back again and I must admit that I found it better on a second look. David Walliams didn't come across as camp and irrelevant as he seemed to last night. Why is that, I wonder? The programme is an identical copy on my hard drive recorder. The variable, therefore, is me. I will certainly watch the second episode with interest.
I am not avid. Too many changes. Tommy was not married to Tuppence in the beginning. Albert was a lift boy and not a disabled scientist/ photographer. Oil skin wallet changes to tapes. Tommy is a bit of a weak willed drip. Nothing like the Tommy I have read in the books or picture in my mind.
There was also no sinking of the Luisitania. A big disappointment.
They have an intent to do 'original' stories after exhausting the Christie ones. There aren't many of those, and they are set variously between the 1920s and 1970s, so if they were done 'faithfully' then it isn't really extendable unless they were all done in the 70s, or 'new' stories were slotted in. So they decided on the 1950s as a kind of midpoint to do everything in (considering that as 'less formal' than doing it all in the 20s).
On the basis of last night though I'm not sure they will get the chance to finish off just the Chrisities unless they have good co-finances.
I wonder if the BBC will do the T&T books that ITV added Miss Marple (sorry ... "Agatha Christie's Marple") to?
Wasn't impressed with last night. the most jarring thing, other than David Walliams, was the awful CGI. Every shot of London had a CGI'd St Pauls in the background, and every shot of Paris has a CGI Eiffel Tower. It would probably have been cheaper to have given the extras striped shirts, neckerchiefs and strings of onions.
The sequence with T&T visiting uncle thingummy in the Ritz annoyed me, with Tommy getting his hand slapped away by uncle thingummy all the time. Was it meant to be funny?
Rita the opera singer was the best thing in it.
Mrs Chuff fell asleep.
I have just watched it back again and I must admit that I found it better on a second look. David Walliams didn't come across as camp and irrelevant as he seemed to last night. Why is that, I wonder? The programme is an identical copy on my hard drive recorder. The variable, therefore, is me. I will certainly watch the second episode with interest.
I haven't read the books not sticking to them in any way didn't bother me. I've seen a few episodes with others playing T + T. I'm not a fan of DW but I thought he played the part well. I found it watchable.
I didn't think Walliams was the only problem though; I thought the script was weak, there was no warmth in Tuppence's character, no chemistry between the two leads, and the attemp at an injection of subtle humour didn't work for me.
Yeah, as many have already stated, the chemistry was not there at all. Because Walliams couldn't carry it, it all fell on Raine to take the lead (if you switched the male and female role, the man would be accused of being disrespectful of his missus).
And yes, there was no warmth either in Tuppence's character. Which is a real shame, as I do think these are the only adventure novels from AC that actually worked. My own casting would be Lexie Dowling (The Queen from The Musketeers) and Freddie Fox (his sister would have been a great Tuppence 15 years ago).
I've long since stopped expecting any Agatha Christie adaptation to be very faithful to the books, and I don't really mind that, if they're done well - I just didn't think this one was.
The Poirot series for instance did do away with the faithfulness over the years, but bar the odd misfire (Cards on the Table ) they made it work as the scripts were generally very good (so they could come up with a plausible alternative).
I have just watched it back again and I must admit that I found it better on a second look. David Walliams didn't come across as camp and irrelevant as he seemed to last night. Why is that, I wonder? The programme is an identical copy on my hard drive recorder. The variable, therefore, is me. I will certainly watch the second episode with interest.
He used to describe himself as the campest straight* man in the UK. He's now split up from his wife over her unwillingness to tolerate this (and him wearing womens clothes).
*He has stated that he "has had some gay fumblings as a schoolboy'.
I'm assuming that she knew all this before she married him
Comments
There was also no sinking of the Luisitania. A big disappointment.
But whereas Tuppence is always portrayed as the brighter of the two, Tommy is bright enough and the 2 enjoy a good banter. David Walliams' "Tommy" comes across as dull, boring and ignorant. Is that because of a weak script, or because DW cannot act? I suspect the latter!
I've always preferred Marple to T&T, but even so this does A Christie's books no favours at all (unless of course it improves massively over the next few weeks!)
It wouldn't have been if you'd been on it.
I agree. It worked well in Father Brown.
I agree with your other points, too.
If you were a fan of the Father a Brown short stories the TV series was epically awful a parody in fact.
The TV series was more a UK version of Father Dowling, most of the stories bore absolutely no reference to the original Father Brown. Recurring characters purely from the imagination of the scriptwriters and recurring characters from the short stories made into totally different people.
I know. But it was quite pleasant to watch, for me - obviously you don't agree.
I do sympathise, btw. It's awful when things you like are mangled in adaptations. I just don't have any emotional involvement in the Father Brown Stories as written, so the TV series didn't bother me.
I'm not that bothered about Tommy and Tuppence, either, but the difference is, I thought the Father Brown stories were well acted, and the characters did seem to have some personality. In this adaptation of Christie, the characters had zero charisma, especially as depicted by Walliams.
I'll admit I am not enthralled by this series, but it was entertaining enough for that slot on a Sunday evening.
I actually thought that Walliams was suitable for the part, even though I don't like him.
I was at school when I read a couple of the Tommy and Tuppence books and only vaguely remember them, but I thought that the two characters fitted well into the adaptation. and I kind of remember them this way in the books.
And I quite liked the cold war setting (but that may be because of watching recent re-runs of Foyle).
My only slight hesitation was that I actually thought that Jessica Raines looked a little old at times for the 'bright young thing' part she seemed to be playing despite also being a mum (strangely, Walliams' age didn't seem to matter). And I thought that at times she came across as a little cold.
But overall, I have a series link for this. It's not something I will rush to watch, but as a series I think it's worth recording.
it looked great and Jessica Rain was good , loved her outfits (don't usually notice the clothes ) but it felt like it should sparkle and fizz along and it just didn't .
That's not actually the point. Tommy and Tuppance in this book were a combined age of 'less than 45' David would be perfect for N or M cos they're in their 40's in that one!
In this book she's about 22.
In the book, wasn't Albert about 15?
Piorot- 1930's
Marple - 1950's
lost some of that period sharpness- and yes as somebody said they were not married at first.
On the basis of last night though I'm not sure they will get the chance to finish off just the Chrisities unless they have good co-finances.
Wasn't impressed with last night. the most jarring thing, other than David Walliams, was the awful CGI. Every shot of London had a CGI'd St Pauls in the background, and every shot of Paris has a CGI Eiffel Tower. It would probably have been cheaper to have given the extras striped shirts, neckerchiefs and strings of onions.
The sequence with T&T visiting uncle thingummy in the Ritz annoyed me, with Tommy getting his hand slapped away by uncle thingummy all the time. Was it meant to be funny?
Rita the opera singer was the best thing in it.
Mrs Chuff fell asleep.
Yeah, as many have already stated, the chemistry was not there at all. Because Walliams couldn't carry it, it all fell on Raine to take the lead (if you switched the male and female role, the man would be accused of being disrespectful of his missus).
And yes, there was no warmth either in Tuppence's character. Which is a real shame, as I do think these are the only adventure novels from AC that actually worked. My own casting would be Lexie Dowling (The Queen from The Musketeers) and Freddie Fox (his sister would have been a great Tuppence 15 years ago).
The Poirot series for instance did do away with the faithfulness over the years, but bar the odd misfire (Cards on the Table
Yes, she finally got him to leave his wife after two years of cheating :rolleyes:
Jessica Raine is beautiful, but like her perfomance in Call the Midwife, she comes off as uncaring and cold.
N or M is my favourite book, but to me, it has to take place in WWII in order to "work".
I liked some of his earlier work, but like many others, his fame and perception of his talents seems to have gone to his head.
He used to describe himself as the campest straight* man in the UK. He's now split up from his wife over her unwillingness to tolerate this (and him wearing womens clothes).
*He has stated that he "has had some gay fumblings as a schoolboy'.
I'm assuming that she knew all this before she married him
Its obvious that the Major wat did it.
DW & a "Queen Bee"!