[Straker]

Originally Posted by Killary45

Just think how impoverished our TV and film library would be if the rule that you are advocating were followed, and how very silly it is to condemn a film that you have not seen just because there has been an earlier adaptation of the same original story.

I’m not advocating any such rule. In your rush to polarise opinions you seem to have misrepresented me. Wilfully or accidentally only you can say......

Also, as pointed out above the BBC’s recent track record on re-making acknowledged Hitchcock classics (The 39 Steps) is hardly encouraging when anticipating their version of The Lady Vanishes particularly seeing as those involved bizarrely feel the need to rubbish Hitchcock’s version in order to publicise theirs!

[Doghouse Riley]

Originally Posted by Killary45

My point is simple. Just because there has already been one adaptation of an original story such as The Fellowship of the Ring, that does not mean that there should not be others.

If that was the case then we would never have had David Lean's Great Expectations, because there had been at least two films made from that novel before 1946.

Just think how impoverished our TV and film library would be if the rule that you are advocating were followed, and how very silly it is to condemn a film that you have not seen just because there has been an earlier adaptation of the same original story.

Hang on, you must try to distinguish between "rule" and "choice." I'm also "advocating" nothing, I'm expressing a personal opinion. So give over with the assumptions.

Perhaps you should have read my original post more carefully before banging on about The Lord of the Rings (which has naff all to do with The Lady Vanishes), so I'll repeat it for you.


Re-makes I find, aren't usually much cop, they make 'em as they can't come up with a halfway decent original story line.

(meaning an original drama).

The same lack of talent is usually evident in the re-make.

So can we now move on?

I've no idea why this is so important to you, other than trying to impress people with your knowledge of a few films.

[Killary45]

Originally Posted by Straker

Also, as pointed out above the BBC’s recent track record on re-making acknowledged Hitchcock classics (The 39 Steps)

You still do not get my point.

The BBC has never re-made Hitchcock's The 39 Steps. It has produced an adaptation of John Buchan's The 39 Steps, which, if I remember correctly was very different from Hitchcock's adaptation.

I suspect that the BBC adaptation of the novel The Lady Vanishes will be very different from Hitchcock's adaptation of The Lady Vanishes. I do not see why anyone should judge it against Hitchcock's version before it has even been shown, and tell us that because Hitchcock made a version in 1938 this is going to be limp and lacklustre in comparison.

Why do people not realise that it is silly to judge a programme before it has been shown and very silly indeed to suggest that because someone else has already made an adaptation of some original material that they would prefer it if nobody else should ever use the material again?

[Doghouse Riley]

Originally Posted by Killary45

You still do not get my point.

The BBC has never re-made Hitchcock's The 39 Steps. It has produced an adaptation of John Buchan's The 39 Steps, which, if I remember correctly was very different from Hitchcock's adaptation.

I suspect that the BBC adaptation of the novel The Lady Vanishes will be very different from Hitchcock's adaptation of The Lady Vanishes. I do not see why anyone should judge it against Hitchcock's version before it has even been shown, and tell us that because Hitchcock made a version in 1938 this is going to be limp and lacklustre in comparison.

Why do people not realise that it is silly to judge a programme before it has been shown and very silly indeed to suggest that because someone else has already made an adaptation of some original material that they would prefer it if nobody else should ever use the material again?

Why do "some people not realise" that others may have a different view from their own?

Most of us on here don't always come on here to be "converted" or "educated," sometimes we just like to express an opinion. You're under no obligation to like it, just accept it and move on.

[Jo March]

Originally Posted by Straker

IIRC didn’t the director or producer slag off the Hitchcock version as part of the rationale for this new version? I somehow doubt he/she’s got anyone nearly as good as Basil Radford, Naunton Wayne, Margaret Lockwood and Michael Redgrave so it’s somewhat arrogant of him/her to pick holes in what most agree is a classic.

,

I'm sure I read online somewhere that those two characters don't feature in the new version of The Lady Vanishes...how can that be???...they are such a big part of the story of the 1939 version..
I have watched that version numerous times and I would be very surprised if it could be bettered.

[Doghouse Riley]

Originally Posted by Jo March

I'm sure I read online somewhere that those two characters don't feature in the new version of The Lady Vanishes...how can that be???...they are such a big part of the story of the 1939 version..
I have watched that version numerous times and I would be very surprised if it could be bettered.

It amused me that they went "all Arsene Wenger" about witnessing anything, as they wanted to get back for a test match.

[RichardRees]

Originally Posted by Doghouse Riley

Don't want to watch another version of the story. But feel free to watch it yourself.

Thanks, but I've no need to either - I've already seen it

As I said earlier, the new adaptation is closer to the book, and hence doesn't include the characters added by the Hitchcock version.

I understand why, if people have watched an adaptation that they have enjoyed, they then consider it definitive, and any revised reversion will not be to their liking, but I doubt if most people today have even seen the 74 year old Hitchcock version, let alone consider it a problem if someone decides to produce a new version. Perhaps they should have called it The Wheel Spins, after the original, but I guess it was originally part of a mini-Hitchcock season, what with the drama the other night, and a few of the films being repeated, but has been delayed once the BBC realised that it is somewhat different from the first film.

[Doghouse Riley]

Originally Posted by RichardRees

Thanks, but I've no need to either - I've already seen it

As I said earlier, the new adaptation is closer to the book, and hence doesn't include the characters added by the Hitchcock version.

I understand why, if people have watched an adaptation that they have enjoyed, they then consider it definitive, and any revised reversion will not be to their liking, but I doubt if most people today have even seen the 74 year old Hitchcock version, let alone consider it a problem if someone decides to produce a new version. Perhaps they should have called it The Wheel Spins, after the original, but I guess it was originally part of a mini-Hitchcock season, what with the drama the other night, and a few of the films being repeated, but has been delayed once the BBC realised that it is somewhat different from the first film.

Good for you, but give up trying to get people to watch another version of basically the same story when they've expressed that they've no interest.
The lady either "vanishes" and returns in the final reel, or she doesn't.

[Joseph_Taylor]

Before we pass judgement on this adaptation of the novel, we will have to wait for it to hit TV screens. It was meant to be on during Christmas, but there was a scheduling cock-up, so Xmas Eve came and went, without it being shown on BBC One. The BBC have not yet decided upon a new airdate, so it may well be the case that we will be forced to wait until next Xmas, at the earliest, until it is broadcast.

[RichardRees]

TV and Satellite Week suggesting it is now due to be shown in April.

[Joseph_Taylor]

I have done a search for this title on the HMV website, and it has the first week in February as the release date on DVD. Therefore, re-scheduling the Xmas tv treat that wasn't in the BBC seasonal stocking for April seems wholly ludicrous.

[Verence]

Originally Posted by Jo March

I'm sure I read online somewhere that those two characters don't feature in the new version of The Lady Vanishes...how can that be???...they are such a big part of the story of the 1939 version..
I have watched that version numerous times and I would be very surprised if it could be bettered.

Charters and Caldicott were specially created for the Hitchcock film and don't appear in the original book

[balthasar]

No Charters & Caldicott....! Just not cricket.

[gerry d]

It's been confirmed by the BBC that this will be shown later this month.BBC1 Sunday 17th March.

[wizzywick]

Originally Posted by gerry d

It's been confirmed by the BBC that this will be shown later this month.BBC1 Sunday 17th March.

I'm not sure it looks very good..................

[Paace]

I don't usually enjoy remakes but found the 1979 version starring Cybill Shepherd and Elliott Gould very enjoyable .

[gerry d]

I'll give this a watch tomorrow night.On the subject of the 1979 film this is on tomorrow afternoon on Film4 at 3.05pm

[Tassium]

Noticed how, with a few exceptions, UK drama has become cliche and "marketable"?

In other words rarely has it anything to say about Britain today.

When the attempt is made it's embarrassingly prejudiced.

[Rickkie]

Originally Posted by Verence

Charters and Caldicott were specially created for the Hitchcock film and don't appear in the original book

Hi ...... it might be of interest .... Charters and Caldicot popped up again in Night Train to Munich (1940) with Rex Harrison instead of Michael Redgrave ....... a similar effort, looking part morale raiser/part rip-off reprise.

[Rickkie]

Originally Posted by Tassium

Noticed how, with a few exceptions, UK drama has become cliche and "marketable"?

In other words rarely has it anything to say about Britain today.

When the attempt is made it's embarrassingly prejudiced.

Absolutely. Things are now made as internationally marketable media product, extruded from a sausage machine. This had the look of many recent period productions - cgi-ed sumptuousness./ modern people in period hired costume.

[duncann]

Originally Posted by Rickkie

Absolutely. Things are now made as internationally marketable media product, extruded from a sausage machine. This had the look of many recent period productions - cgi-ed sumptuousness./ modern people in period hired costume.

I so agree about 'modern people in period hire costume'!

Usually they just don't talk the way people talked at the time. I know there are limitations - if it were medieval we probably wouldn't be able to understand the people from that time but we can perfectly understand the dialogue in Austen and Dickens on the page and movies from the late 1920s on.

What's wrong is that productions like The Lady Vanishes are made by the BBC - funded by the UK taxpayer to provide programmes for us, not for the US market or anyone else overseas. We can see endless crappy Hollywood films depicting a Britain where all the men are like Hugh Grant and all the older women are like the Queen and Margaret Thatcher and live in thatched cottages in a dense forest of red telephone and pillar boxes - that may be marketable overseas but it's not what the BBC should be doing.

I'm currently in the USA and it's so obvious here looking at BBC America and the BBC website here that at some point the BBC orientated itself to selling hard in the USA and raising ad revenue here and promoting its web services. So our public service TV is not only going commercial, it's going American commercial. Were it up to me, I'd legislate to insist the BBC is 100% focussed on the UK where it raises its revenue from. I also suspect BBC execs are themselves fixated on US and Hollywood careers, hence their desire to create a huge product range to suit US tastes.

[Eater Sundae]

Originally Posted by duncann

I so agree about 'modern people in period hire costume'!

Usually they just don't talk the way people talked at the time. I know there are limitations - if it were medieval we probably wouldn't be able to understand the people from that time but we can perfectly understand the dialogue in Austen and Dickens on the page and movies from the late 1920s on.

What's wrong is that productions like The Lady Vanishes are made by the BBC - funded by the UK taxpayer to provide programmes for us, not for the US market or anyone else overseas. We can see endless crappy Hollywood films depicting a Britain where all the men are like Hugh Grant and all the older women are like the Queen and Margaret Thatcher and live in thatched cottages in a dense forest of red telephone and pillar boxes - that may be marketable overseas but it's not what the BBC should be doing.

I'm currently in the USA and it's so obvious here looking at BBC America and the BBC website here that at some point the BBC orientated itself to selling hard in the USA and raising ad revenue here and promoting its web services. So our public service TV is not only going commercial, it's going American commercial. Were it up to me, I'd legislate to insist the BBC is 100% focussed on the UK where it raises its revenue from. I also suspect BBC execs are themselves fixated on US and Hollywood careers, hence their desire to create a huge product range to suit US tastes.

Surely the point is that the UK is no longer the BBC's only source of income. If there is a definable market overseas, it's hardly surprising that some of its output is tailored to that market.

[ecckles]

Originally Posted by Straker

I’m not advocating any such rule. In your rush to polarise opinions you seem to have misrepresented me. Wilfully or accidentally only you can say......

Also, as pointed out above the BBC’s recent track record on re-making acknowledged Hitchcock classics (The 39 Steps) is hardly encouraging when anticipating their version of The Lady Vanishes particularly seeing as those involved bizarrely feel the need to rubbish Hitchcock’s version in order to publicise theirs!

Classic films such as `The lady Vanishes` should be judged on their merit, and not be tinkered about with by the likes of the BBC unless they can improve on the original...which they failed to do so

[Wench02]

I quite enjoyed it.

What I really, really want to know is.... where was the final railway station sequences filmed? Not Trieste I'm gathering?

[Englishspinner]

Originally Posted by Wench02

I quite enjoyed it.

What I really, really want to know is.... where was the final railway station sequences filmed? Not Trieste I'm gathering?

Budapest Keleti (East) Station, I think.