|
||||||||
Witness for the prosecution |
![]() |
|
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|
#401 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2014
Posts: 72
|
Quote:
Yes I can avoid watching as you say but why should I?
|
|
|
|
|
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
|
|
|
#402 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 2,590
|
Quote:
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#403 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2014
Posts: 72
|
Quote:
Well, going by comments on this thread (I agree not scientific) many more didn't enjoy it than did.
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. |
|
|
|
|
|
#404 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 2,590
|
Quote:
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. |
|
|
|
|
|
#405 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2014
Posts: 72
|
Quote:
No, a few people liked it, many more didn't. I back that up from having read the whole thread.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#406 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 15,077
|
Quote:
They'll take a cheque!
![]() 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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#407 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 2,590
|
Quote:
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. ![]() |
|
|
|
|
|
#408 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2014
Posts: 72
|
Quote:
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. ![]() (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? |
|
|
|
|
|
#409 |
|
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. |
|
|
|
|
|
#410 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 15,077
|
Quote:
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? |
|
|
|
|
|
#411 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,496
|
Quote:
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. ![]() 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. |
|
|
|
|
|
#412 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 15,077
|
Quote:
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. 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. |
|
|
|
|
|
#413 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,496
|
Quote:
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. 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". |
|
|
|
|
|
#414 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: West London
Posts: 24,303
|
Quote:
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.
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. |
|
|
|
|
|
#415 |
|
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/ |
|
|
|
|
|
#416 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 15,077
|
Quote:
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". 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. |
|
|
|
|
|
#417 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: I'm a she not a he.
Posts: 3,192
|
Quote:
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. It is a bit lazy to use a popular author's name to pull in an audience for what are essentially new works. |
|
|
|
|
|
#418 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: I'm a she not a he.
Posts: 3,192
|
Quote:
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#419 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Honiton, Devon
Posts: 1,930
|
Quote:
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#420 |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#421 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 1,519
|
Quote:
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#422 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: I'm a she not a he.
Posts: 3,192
|
Quote:
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.
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. |
|
|
|
|
|
#423 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 8,098
|
Quote:
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? |
|
|
|
|
|
#424 |
|
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 |
|
|
|
|
|
#425 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 6,088
|
Quote:
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. Not sure why they would choose a well known murder mystery to make that drama. |
|
|
|
![]() |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
All times are GMT. The time now is 04:05.




