DS Forums

 
 

Witness for the prosecution


Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 01-01-2017, 21:01
Mirliton
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Posts: 71
Yes I can avoid watching as you say but why should I?
So you demand that everything must be to your taste then do you, so you may be spared the inconvenience of having to avoid watching it? There are plenty of other people who did enjoy it you know. If all adaptations were to be made the same as previous ones, then why bother at all? If there's an older one you already like, then why not stick with that and be happy? For my part, I'm always happy to see different takes on things, and if I don't like one, I'll say so, but would not say something should never be made that way, particularly where other people have enjoyed it.
Mirliton is offline   Reply With Quote
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
Old 01-01-2017, 21:04
Boz_Lowdownl
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 2,588
So you demand that everything must be to your taste then do you, so you may be spared the inconvenience of having to avoid watching it? There are plenty of other people who did enjoy it you know. If all adaptations were to be made the same as previous ones, then why bother at all? If there's an older one you already like, then why not stick with that and be happy? For my part, I'm always happy to see different takes on things, and if I don't like one, I'll say so, but would not say something should never be made that way, particularly where other people have enjoyed it.
Well, going by comments on this thread (I agree not scientific) many more didn't enjoy it than did.
Boz_Lowdownl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-01-2017, 21:18
Mirliton
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Posts: 71
Well, going by comments on this thread (I agree not scientific) many more didn't enjoy it than did.
I don't know how you can say 'many more' unless you're going to back that up with some numbers.

Even if you're right, so what? It was indeed by going from the comments on this thread that I made my statement there, and I stand by it. If there was near universal condemnation of this, then you might have a point, but there isn't.
Mirliton is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-01-2017, 21:21
Boz_Lowdownl
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 2,588
I don't know how you can say 'many more' unless you're going to back that up with some numbers.

Even if you're right, so what? It was indeed by going from the comments on this thread that I made my statement there, and I stand by it. If there was near universal condemnation of this, then you might have a point, but there isn't.
No, a few people liked it, many more didn't. I back that up from having read the whole thread.
Boz_Lowdownl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-01-2017, 22:10
Mirliton
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Posts: 71
No, a few people liked it, many more didn't. I back that up from having read the whole thread.
I count at least 24 who have posted in this thread to say they enjoyed it. That's a good count imo, especially when you take into account that many people who are against it are comparing it to the highly rated film version, and justifies making it this way.
Mirliton is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-01-2017, 22:27
Granny McSmith
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 15,066
They'll take a cheque!
I think they'll be sending one to sepangblue.



The people who say the BBC are wonderful for doing something different are missing the point imho. The BBC can commission original work about a solicitor back from WW1 who has lost his son and tries to atone by saving a young bloke from the noose, showing his sexual life in full detail.

But would they get the audience they'd get if they tacked Agatha Christie's name to it?

A lot of people watch because it is AC. Then it turns out it isn't - won't get fooled again.
Granny McSmith is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-01-2017, 22:56
Boz_Lowdownl
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 2,588
I think they'll be sending one to sepangblue.



The people who say the BBC are wonderful for doing something different are missing the point imho. The BBC can commission original work about a solicitor back from WW1 who has lost his son and tries to atone by saving a young bloke from the noose, showing his sexual life in full detail.

But would they get the audience they'd get if they tacked Agatha Christie's name to it?


A lot of people watch because it is AC. Then it turns out it isn't - won't get fooled again.
Exactly! This is how I feel about Moffat and Who / Sherlock. Let him make up his own series of convoluted stories and see how well they do, not use the Who and Sherlock brands as an easy way into getting his own stories made.
Boz_Lowdownl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-01-2017, 23:10
Mirliton
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Posts: 71
The people who say the BBC are wonderful for doing something different are missing the point imho. The BBC can commission original work about a solicitor back from WW1 who has lost his son and tries to atone by saving a young bloke from the noose, showing his sexual life in full detail.

But would they get the audience they'd get if they tacked Agatha Christie's name to it?

A lot of people watch because it is AC. Then it turns out it isn't - won't get fooled again.
Why do you lazily assume I am missing that particular point? I assure you, I am not.

(I say "that particular point" because it is quite amusing to me that you imply that it is the one and only point to be seen.)

And where have I said "the BBC are wonderful" for what they have done with this production? That is not my opinion at all.

Or are you speaking about other FMs?
Mirliton is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-01-2017, 23:23
Kim P
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 458
Can't understand why some people get so worked up over fiction! I am quite surprised at the level of venom on display from one or two on here.

Watched both episodes this evening. It was fine as far as I was concerned, seen better seen worse. Found the first episode a little slow but made up for it in the second.
Kim P is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-01-2017, 23:29
Granny McSmith
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 15,066
Why do you lazily assume I am missing that particular point? I assure you, I am not.

(I say "that particular point" because it is quite amusing to me that you imply that it is the one and only point to be seen.)

And where have I said "the BBC are wonderful" for what they have done with this production? That is not my opinion at all.

Or are you speaking about other FMs?
I'm sure there are lots of points. I happened to choose that one. I can't remember who was extolling the BBC and I'm not interested enough to trawl through the thread to find out. If it wasn't you, then my post was not directed at you, was it?
Granny McSmith is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-01-2017, 23:54
Killary45
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,496
The people who say the BBC are wonderful for doing something different are missing the point imho. The BBC can commission original work about a solicitor back from WW1 who has lost his son and tries to atone by saving a young bloke from the noose, showing his sexual life in full detail.

But would they get the audience they'd get if they tacked Agatha Christie's name to it?

A lot of people watch because it is AC. Then it turns out it isn't - won't get fooled again.
Agatha Christie died in 1976, so under the current law her work is copyright until 2046. Until then no adaptations of her stories can appear unless her estate gives permission, so it must have approved of the changes to the story which appeared in this script. If the BBC had produced this drama without giving credit to Christie, then the estate could have sued for breach of copyright, since the basic story and the twist were all true to the original.

Conan Doyle died in 1930, so since 2000 his works have been out of copyright. This has led to a lot of original variations on the Sherlock Holmes character such as the Cumberbatch series and Elementary.
Killary45 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-01-2017, 00:18
Granny McSmith
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 15,066
Agatha Christie died in 1976, so under the current law her work is copyright until 2046. Until then no adaptations of her stories can appear unless her estate gives permission, so it must have approved of the changes to the story which appeared in this script. If the BBC had produced this drama without giving credit to Christie, then the estate could have sued for breach of copyright, since the basic story and the twist were all true to the original.

Conan Doyle died in 1930, so since 2000 his works have been out of copyright. This has led to a lot of original variations on the Sherlock Holmes character such as the Cumberbatch series and Elementary.
Yes, I know.

The scenario I outlined could have been written without reference to any AC plot. It was mainly what this drama was about, but was not in the original.
Granny McSmith is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-01-2017, 07:39
Killary45
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,496
Yes, I know.

The scenario I outlined could have been written without reference to any AC plot. It was mainly what this drama was about, but was not in the original.
I would suggest that the scenario you outlined would not have been anywhere near as good as the one that was shown, since it lacked all the key elements of the plot - those invented by Agatha Christie - that made the show worth producing.

This is hardly the first time that a film or television series has made considerable alterations and additions to an Agatha Christie plot. Most people who watch dramas based on Christie stories expect this to happen, and do not consider themselves to have been "fooled".
Killary45 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-01-2017, 10:38
Inkblot
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: West London
Posts: 24,303
Agatha Christie died in 1976, so under the current law her work is copyright until 2046. Until then no adaptations of her stories can appear unless her estate gives permission, so it must have approved of the changes to the story which appeared in this script. If the BBC had produced this drama without giving credit to Christie, then the estate could have sued for breach of copyright, since the basic story and the twist were all true to the original.
According to http://www.agathachristie.com/about-...ristie-limited the rights are managed by Agatha Christie Limited, 36% of which is owned by Agatha Christie's family and 64% owned by RLJ Entertainment, "a premier independent owner, developer, licensee and distributor of entertainment content and programming". RLJ's web site lists Foyle's War as another of its properties.

I believe it would be usual for a company like ACL to license content to other companies for a fee, so they could sue for loss of earnings if a Christie story was adapted for TV without their agreement.
Inkblot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-01-2017, 10:44
holly berry
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 6,372
I didn't realise that much of WFTP was filmed in Liverpool with many of the interiors being filmed in one place: Croxteth Hall

http://liverpoolcityhalls.co.uk/croxteth-hall/
holly berry is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-01-2017, 11:46
Granny McSmith
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 15,066
I would suggest that the scenario you outlined would not have been anywhere near as good as the one that was shown, since it lacked all the key elements of the plot - those invented by Agatha Christie - that made the show worth producing.

This is hardly the first time that a film or television series has made considerable alterations and additions to an Agatha Christie plot. Most people who watch dramas based on Christie stories expect this to happen, and do not consider themselves to have been "fooled".
How do you know, I haven't written it yet; of course there will be all sorts of twists and sub plots. The solicitor's wife, who loathes the solicitor, is having an affair with the accused, but it turns out she's his mother and gave him away for adoption as a baby, which made the loss of her other, legitimate son even more poignant.

Anyway, the accused is gay, as was the other son, and they had an affair while fighting in France, and when the solicitor's wife finds out she shoots the accused just before he is about to be pronounced Not Guilty, so she is in turn arrested.

Then when she's standing trial the son comes back - he's had amnesia and thought he was a French pig farmer for a while. The jury lets her off in sympathy, marital relations are harmoniously restored and the three go on a day trip to France (the son has married a French girl and they have a baby). But the boat they are in sinks and they all die.

The French wife (not on board) has sabotaged the boat because she's found out the son has been having an affair with a real pig farmer. (Remember, he's gay).

The story ends where the French wife, holding baby, looks sadly out to sea......and the pig farmer is seen creeping up behind her with a gun.

That do? Plenty of sex, intrigue, pathos, violence.
Granny McSmith is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-01-2017, 15:39
Swanandduck2
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: I'm a she not a he.
Posts: 3,192
But we've seen all the old-school adaptations of Christie's stories before too. Why shouldn't writers try a different approach?

And this "BBC-style" jibe is getting tedious. The BBC has always commissioned writers to take a new look at old stories. Andrew Davies's version of Pride and Prejudice was seen as a controversial new approach at the time; now it's seen as a classic drama.

Maybe this interpretation of The Witness For The Prosecution won't be seen as a classic in the future, but we'd never know if the BBC hadn't commissioned it.
Surely it would make more sense for the BBC to commission new dramas, than to twist, turn and change existing work, moving them far away from what their original author intended?
It is a bit lazy to use a popular author's name to pull in an audience for what are essentially new works.
Swanandduck2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-01-2017, 15:43
Swanandduck2
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: I'm a she not a he.
Posts: 3,192
So everything on television should be done exactly the same way it's been done before, should it? And for your sole benefit, it seems. I don't know how many times I have to say that this is being with the full knowledge and approval of the Christie rights holders before it sinks in. It will therefore be the approach that will be taken for the remaining seven dramas that have been approved so you really can't say next Christmas that you haven't been given fair warning.
Well obviously it's with the full approval of the Christie rights holders. How could they have produced it otherwise. That doesn't mean it's okay or that AC would have liked seeing her work being pulled and dragged around like this.
Swanandduck2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-01-2017, 15:57
Baz_James
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Honiton, Devon
Posts: 1,917
Well obviously it's with the full approval of the Christie rights holders. How could they have produced it otherwise. That doesn't mean it's okay or that AC would have liked seeing her work being pulled and dragged around like this.
As she herself rewrote the ending for the film, and made no obvious objections to the liberties taken in the Margaret Rutherford Marple films I'm really not sure that there's any grounds to suppose that she would have objected. In any event the rights holders, Agatha Christie Ltd., a company the lady set up herself and currently run by her great grandson can reasonably be assumed to have a rather better idea of what she would or would not have approved than yourself. That, having seen both productions from last year and this, they have released a further seven stories into the care of the same BBC production team certainly supports the view that it is very much okay with them and fully in keeping with the heritage they protect.
Baz_James is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-01-2017, 16:06
Bob Le Terrible
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 17
Interesting trivia fact: Back in old-timey London, all surfaces - indoors as well as outdoors - were covered in a thick layer of solidified pea soup.
Bob Le Terrible is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-01-2017, 17:11
SepangBlue
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 1,519
Interesting trivia fact: Back in old-timey London, all surfaces - indoors as well as outdoors - were covered in a thick layer of solidified pea soup.
Presumably from the same supplier they used for dressing the sets of the recent production of 10 Rillington Place?
SepangBlue is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-01-2017, 21:54
Swanandduck2
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: I'm a she not a he.
Posts: 3,192
As she herself rewrote the ending for the film, and made no obvious objections to the liberties taken in the Margaret Rutherford Marple films I'm really not sure that there's any grounds to suppose that she would have objected. In any event the rights holders, Agatha Christie Ltd., a company the lady set up herself and currently run by her great grandson can reasonably be assumed to have a rather better idea of what she would or would not have approved than yourself. That, having seen both productions from last year and this, they have released a further seven stories into the care of the same BBC production team certainly supports the view that it is very much okay with them and fully in keeping with the heritage they protect.
How do you know that they're being guided by what they believe AC would have approved of? These things are often more complex than that. I find it very difficult to believe that AC would have approved of the sex scenes in WFTP, or some of the overt lesbianism in some of the Marple adaptations. In fact, I don't believe it.

And it is on the record that she was disappointed by the Rutherford adaptations. I think she would be horrifed by some of the more recent ones.
Swanandduck2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-01-2017, 22:50
Faust
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 8,097



Questions (apologies if they've already been gone over):
- how or why was the maid so easily convicted? It all seemed to be down to blood on her cuffs, the killing of the cat, the loss of her stipend and her 'hysterical' reaction on the stand. Surely that wouldn't be sufficient, even in the '20's?
Timothy Evans was hanged on less.
Faust is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2017, 10:20
Osusana
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 5,390
Just watched this and not read any of the thread - I thought it was turgid and depressing with the expected twist worked out well in advance in my household.

Very, very disappointed and expected more from something with Agatha Christie's name in front of it
Osusana is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2017, 10:55
pedrok
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 6,081
Surely it would make more sense for the BBC to commission new dramas, than to twist, turn and change existing work, moving them far away from what their original author intended?
It is a bit lazy to use a popular author's name to pull in an audience for what are essentially new works.
I mentioned earlier that. Had the BBC wished a WW1 survivor guilt drama, there were far better and more relevant examples they could have picked.

Not sure why they would choose a well known murder mystery to make that drama.
pedrok is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply




 
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 17:38.