Pretty much how I feel. It's a pale shadow of the original. It ought to be loads better because of all the technology and clever camera work available now, but it's not.
I think viewers judgements are being clouded by Aidan Turners looks. Most of the reviews I've read seem to focus on this. I think he could stand there brooding at the sunset and people would still think he's amazing.
I think viewers judgements are being clouded by Aidan Turners looks. Most of the reviews I've read seem to focus on this. I think he could stand there brooding at the sunset and people would still think he's amazing.
I can't see The new Demelza being a patch on Angharad Rees either.
Dear oh dear, Beatie Edney needs to go to slimming classes.
Shocking weight gain.
You do realise that is a lot of padding and makeup to achieve the Prudie look … ?
Beatie Edney tweeted a picture of herself (on the left) and Sabrina Bartlett at the BFI screening on 23 February:
I think viewers judgements are being clouded by Aidan Turners looks. Most of the reviews I've read seem to focus on this. I think he could stand there brooding at the sunset and people would still think he's amazing.
My judgement's just fine. I find the drooling over AT embarrassing (or any objectifying an actor for their looks) and hate the shirtless scenes added to most period dramas now. I wish the trailers had not played it up and that the reviews would deal more with the storytelling and not the leading man's looks - but it seems they respond to what they believe 'the women' want. I happen to think this is a better production all round than the seventies adaptation - which I did not see in the seventies! That does not detract from the original cast at all, but I believe production values and standards of TV acting have changed.
I'm somewhat ashamed never to have read the book, and I'd never seen an earlier adaptation, so last night was my first exposure to Poldark. I enjoyed it and will be watching the whole series, might read the book once it's finished! I genuinely wouldn't have recognised Aidan Turner having seen him in Being Human, he seemed to fit the part perfectly. It is hard though when a new adaptation comes along, I for one will never accept anyone other than Colin Firth as Darcy!
The originals strong point was the great characterisation they had in it - seems the producers just went for bland for the remake - hard to understand why.
Missed the original, I could not remember why, because usually watched any BBC classic serials, and love Cornwall, however after watching first episode I suspect the reason must have been the very turgid and predictable story line.
Will continue watching in the hope of something unexpected happening, but mainly for the fantastic Cornwall costal scenery.
I don't know anything about the storyline having never seen the original or read the books. I'm a sucker for a period drama though and this one seemed particularly well done to me.
The beauty of the landscape took my breath away, I can see Cornwalls tourist population soaring.
It also looks like Aidans career is going to be majorly launched following this too. Hard to believe i was one of those who lamented him leaving Being Human and now hes all set to become a household name. Talented guy though, i hope he gets recognition for that and not just his smouldering good looks.
Missed the original, I could not remember why, because usually watched any BBC classic serials, and love Cornwall, however after watching first episode I suspect the reason must have been the very turgid and predictable story line.
Will continue watching in the hope of something unexpected happening, but mainly for the fantastic Cornwall costal scenery.
Just the same as me. I've been trying and trying to remember why I didn't watch the original, or if I did give it a try but gave up on it.
Like you, I'll see how it goes. (I must admit, though, it's more the Aidan Turner scenery than the Cornish that's got my attention.)
I think viewers judgements are being clouded by Aidan Turners looks. Most of the reviews I've read seem to focus on this. I think he could stand there brooding at the sunset and people would still think he's amazing.
My thoughts as well. But I've no objection to having "something for the ladies" on tv occasionally. Gives me an argument for watching a few hours of football this week.
My thoughts as well. But I've no objection to having "something for the ladies" on tv occasionally. Gives me an argument for watching a few hours of football this week.
I was only ten when the original aired so I only have very vague memories of it. As a result I'm just judging the new version on it's own merits rather than comparing it to the original and I enjoyed it a lot.
I'm somewhat ashamed never to have read the book, and I'd never seen an earlier adaptation, so last night was my first exposure to Poldark. I enjoyed it and will be watching the whole series, might read the book once it's finished! I genuinely wouldn't have recognised Aidan Turner having seen him in Being Human, he seemed to fit the part perfectly. It is hard though when a new adaptation comes along, I for one will never accept anyone other than Colin Firth as Darcy!
There are 12 books covering the years 1783 to 1820.
This BBC series is covering the first two books "Ross Poldark" and "Demelza Poldark" which cover 1783 to 1790.
The previous series covered the first 7 books up to 1799, with ITV making a mess of book 8.
I can't be the only one who doesn't give a flying pig for a tv production from 35 years ago?
They were all wonderful, life was wonderful, etc - we get it. Why not start a thread about how wonderful everything was - including Poldark - in the 1970s.
I can't be the only one who doesn't give a flying pig for a tv production from 35 years ago?
They were all wonderful, life was wonderful, etc - we get it. Why not start a thread about how wonderful everything was - including Poldark - in the 1970s.
I am sure you are not, but there are a lot of who do remember with great fondness the original Poldark. It made a huge impact, with millions tuning in every Sunday to watch Robin Ellis and Anghared Rees and there are bound to be comparisons.
In the book the fact that Demelza gets beaten up for trying to save Garrick from a fight (actually in the book the mob had tied the dog tail to tail with a cat) prompts Ross's typically quixotic involvement.
Garrick dies of old age. It's described in the 10th book, The Loving Cup.
George has nothing to do with Garrick. I think you're thinking of a different story.
I don't think we are ever told why the dog is called Garrick. There must be other Garricks than the famous one?
The Loving Cup is set during the years 1813 - 1815. Demelza by then would have been 43 - 45 ! The dog couldn't have still been alive by then if Demelza had had him when she was a child. The dog came along much earlier than that, probably not long after she moved to Nampara, but did not come home from Redruth fair with her. The fact that she was beaten up trying to rescue him with Ross intervening to help would strengthen the fact that Demelza was still in her unruly teenage years . I'm sure George or his henchmen were suspected of killing the dog, I'm not thinking of a different story ! The dog is named after the actor - there is a book written all about the making of Poldark, which tells how WG came to name his characters and places - very interesting.
I watched the original Poldark series and the first episode of this new one - I was impressed not just by Aidan Turner's looks (which made me wake up rather sharpish - a fine figure of a man!) - but by the whole thing - like Wolf Hall I felt as though I was back in the time in this case Cornwall of the 18th century, whether it was authentic or not. Definitely looking forward to the rest of the series!
I can't be the only one who doesn't give a flying pig for a tv production from 35 years ago?
They were all wonderful, life was wonderful, etc - we get it. Why not start a thread about how wonderful everything was - including Poldark - in the 1970s.
Exactly.
This is the second adaptation of Winston Graham's books in forty years. How many times have Jane Eyre or David Copperfield been adapted in that period? Yet it seems a sacrilege to re-adapt Poldark for some reason. This is not a remake of the seventies adaptation; this production is not aiming to replicate it or replace it.
This is the second adaptation of Winston Graham's books in forty years. How many times have Jane Eyre or David Copperfield been adapted in that period? Yet it seems a sacrilege to re-adapt Poldark for some reason. This is not a remake of the seventies adaptation; this production is not aiming to replicate it or replace it.
These period adaptations are becoming tiresome though. There's at least 6 on TV at the moment. It's about time they started commissioning some more original or contemporary material.
The Loving Cup is set during the years 1813 - 1815. Demelza by then would have been 43 - 45 ! The dog couldn't have still been alive by then if Demelza had had him when she was a child. The dog came along much earlier than that, probably not long after she moved to Nampara, but did not come home from Redruth fair with her. The fact that she was beaten up trying to rescue him with Ross intervening to help would strengthen the fact that Demelza was still in her unruly teenage years . I'm sure George or his henchmen were suspected of killing the dog, I'm not thinking of a different story ! The dog is named after the actor - there is a book written all about the making of Poldark, which tells how WG came to name his characters and places - very interesting.
Presumably though, while the book may describe the events, that needn't necessarily mean that it takes place during the time it's set. Maybe Demelza remembers it in that book.
While Winston Graham, as the writer, may well have named the dog after the actor Garrick, again, that wouldn't necessarily require anyone to think that, within the fiction, the Carne family were thinking of him when naming the dog, which was what was being discussed in connection with that originally.
I can recall watching the 70s adaption as a kid and read all the books but TBH little is still retained in the memory banks other than I enjoyed both very much.
I also enjoyed last nights episode very much. I must be one of the few females not to have come across Aidan Turner before, a handsome chap but I would still watch the series if that wasn't so. I did find his recovery from the savage beating miraculous but I guess it would not have been practical having him out of the story line for several weeks at the local ICU ;-)
It's a shame they put so much make-up onto Elizabeth. I read somewhere that the BC denied they'd used lipstick on her - really? And she had tons of brown eyeshadow and mascara. They'd stopped doing that for all costume dramas in recent years - shame they started here.
The makeup for all the injuries is so poor, it's almost a comedy effect. It must be this year's Inaudibility Scandal.
These period adaptations are becoming tiresome though. There's at least 6 on TV at the moment. It's about time they started commissioning some more original or contemporary material.
I'm in my element at the moment because I enjoy period drama; I even watch multiple adaptations of classic novels - but are you sure there are that many adaptations on now? I thought that Arthur & George, Indian Summers and Banished were all written for TV (may be wrong).
I do agree there should be at least an equal amount of contemporary dramas especially when they come up with something as gripping as Happy Valley - although I don't watch as many myself.
I'm in my element at the moment because I enjoy period drama; I even watch multiple adaptations of classic novels - but are you sure there are that many adaptations on now? I thought that Arthur & George, Indian Summers and Banished were all written for TV (may be wrong).
I do agree there should be at least an equal amount of contemporary dramas especially when they come up with something as gripping as Happy Valley - although I don't watch as many myself.
Arthur & George is based on the Julian Barnes novel. I know there is a novel called Indian Summers but not sure if this drama is based on the same novel. I like period dramas myself like Wolf Hall but there just seems to be a plethora of them at the moment which feels a bit like overkill.
Comments
I think viewers judgements are being clouded by Aidan Turners looks. Most of the reviews I've read seem to focus on this. I think he could stand there brooding at the sunset and people would still think he's amazing.
I can't see The new Demelza being a patch on Angharad Rees either.
You do realise that is a lot of padding and makeup to achieve the Prudie look … ?
Beatie Edney tweeted a picture of herself (on the left) and Sabrina Bartlett at the BFI screening on 23 February:
My judgement's just fine. I find the drooling over AT embarrassing (or any objectifying an actor for their looks) and hate the shirtless scenes added to most period dramas now. I wish the trailers had not played it up and that the reviews would deal more with the storytelling and not the leading man's looks - but it seems they respond to what they believe 'the women' want. I happen to think this is a better production all round than the seventies adaptation - which I did not see in the seventies! That does not detract from the original cast at all, but I believe production values and standards of TV acting have changed.
Will continue watching in the hope of something unexpected happening, but mainly for the fantastic Cornwall costal scenery.
The beauty of the landscape took my breath away, I can see Cornwalls tourist population soaring.
It also looks like Aidans career is going to be majorly launched following this too. Hard to believe i was one of those who lamented him leaving Being Human and now hes all set to become a household name. Talented guy though, i hope he gets recognition for that and not just his smouldering good looks.
Just the same as me. I've been trying and trying to remember why I didn't watch the original, or if I did give it a try but gave up on it.
Like you, I'll see how it goes. (I must admit, though, it's more the Aidan Turner scenery than the Cornish that's got my attention.)
My thoughts as well. But I've no objection to having "something for the ladies" on tv occasionally. Gives me an argument for watching a few hours of football this week.
lol
This BBC series is covering the first two books "Ross Poldark" and "Demelza Poldark" which cover 1783 to 1790.
The previous series covered the first 7 books up to 1799, with ITV making a mess of book 8.
Spoiler alert.
They were all wonderful, life was wonderful, etc - we get it. Why not start a thread about how wonderful everything was - including Poldark - in the 1970s.
I am sure you are not, but there are a lot of who do remember with great fondness the original Poldark. It made a huge impact, with millions tuning in every Sunday to watch Robin Ellis and Anghared Rees and there are bound to be comparisons.
The Loving Cup is set during the years 1813 - 1815. Demelza by then would have been 43 - 45 ! The dog couldn't have still been alive by then if Demelza had had him when she was a child. The dog came along much earlier than that, probably not long after she moved to Nampara, but did not come home from Redruth fair with her. The fact that she was beaten up trying to rescue him with Ross intervening to help would strengthen the fact that Demelza was still in her unruly teenage years . I'm sure George or his henchmen were suspected of killing the dog, I'm not thinking of a different story ! The dog is named after the actor - there is a book written all about the making of Poldark, which tells how WG came to name his characters and places - very interesting.
Exactly.
This is the second adaptation of Winston Graham's books in forty years. How many times have Jane Eyre or David Copperfield been adapted in that period? Yet it seems a sacrilege to re-adapt Poldark for some reason. This is not a remake of the seventies adaptation; this production is not aiming to replicate it or replace it.
These period adaptations are becoming tiresome though. There's at least 6 on TV at the moment. It's about time they started commissioning some more original or contemporary material.
Presumably though, while the book may describe the events, that needn't necessarily mean that it takes place during the time it's set. Maybe Demelza remembers it in that book.
While Winston Graham, as the writer, may well have named the dog after the actor Garrick, again, that wouldn't necessarily require anyone to think that, within the fiction, the Carne family were thinking of him when naming the dog, which was what was being discussed in connection with that originally.
I also enjoyed last nights episode very much. I must be one of the few females not to have come across Aidan Turner before, a handsome chap but I would still watch the series if that wasn't so. I did find his recovery from the savage beating miraculous but I guess it would not have been practical having him out of the story line for several weeks at the local ICU ;-)
The makeup for all the injuries is so poor, it's almost a comedy effect. It must be this year's Inaudibility Scandal.
I'm in my element at the moment because I enjoy period drama; I even watch multiple adaptations of classic novels - but are you sure there are that many adaptations on now? I thought that Arthur & George, Indian Summers and Banished were all written for TV (may be wrong).
I do agree there should be at least an equal amount of contemporary dramas especially when they come up with something as gripping as Happy Valley - although I don't watch as many myself.
Arthur & George is based on the Julian Barnes novel. I know there is a novel called Indian Summers but not sure if this drama is based on the same novel. I like period dramas myself like Wolf Hall but there just seems to be a plethora of them at the moment which feels a bit like overkill.