| Author | Message | ||
     Gcw (Gcw) Username: Gcw Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 81.155.105.158 |
...The new remake of 'Day Of The Triffids'. I've seen a few pics & read some synopsis and I don't like the look of it at all. Doesn't seem to have enogh connection to the book, and lets be honest, the 1981 BBC version is proabably unsurpassable anyway. gcw | ||
| Seanmcd (Seanmcd) Username: Seanmcd Registered: 03-2009 Posted From: 86.153.165.191 |
There's also a new version of 'The Turn of the Screw' on over Christmas at the BBC. Suppose we'll just have to watch these religiously and see how they go. | ||
| Stephen Walsh (Stephenw) Username: Stephenw Registered: 03-2009 Posted From: 194.32.31.1 |
Strange but I didn't like that BBC version of 'Triffids' at all... it's one of my very favourite novels. The much maligned early 60s film version with Howard Keel is the best adaptation to date for me (undeniably flawed as it is). | ||
| Zed (Gary_mc) Username: Gary_mc Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 213.219.8.243 |
I tink the 1980s Triffids adaptation is one of the best things ever shown on British TV. I watched it again a year or two ago, and it holds up remarkably well. | ||
| Stu (Stu) Username: Stu Registered: 04-2008 Posted From: 86.29.177.155 |
The '80s Triffids scared the crap out of me as a kid. I'm hoping that the new version doesn't end up like the new version of Survivors just with flowers. | ||
| Zed (Gary_mc) Username: Gary_mc Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 213.219.8.243 |
I loved the new version of Survivors. After a shaky first ep, it grew in stature, IMHO. I just hope the creators of the new Triffids stay clear of CGI. It's bad enough in cinema features, but on TV is just looks shit (and that's a technical term). | ||
| Stu (Stu) Username: Stu Registered: 04-2008 Posted From: 86.29.177.155 |
In CGI terms shit stands for Stunningly Hopeless Imaging Technology. | ||
| Zed (Gary_mc) Username: Gary_mc Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 213.219.8.243 |
 | ||
| Weber_gregston (Weber_gregston) Username: Weber_gregston Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 194.176.105.56 |
Shit originally derives from days of yore. when transporting manure by ship, they noticed that some ships would explode at sea. they figured out that if the manure was stored too far below decks it released more methane gas because of the pressure. They therefore started labelling crates with the notice Ship High In Transit - the acronym for which is... and a new swear word was born. And that is the genuine origin of the word. | ||
| Stu (Stu) Username: Stu Registered: 04-2008 Posted From: 86.29.177.155 |
Weber, this chap says you're wrong. http://www.etymonline.com/baloney.php Of course you don't have to believe him. After all he is talking shit. | ||
| Weber_gregston (Weber_gregston) Username: Weber_gregston Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 194.176.105.56 |
My explanation is a much better story though. | ||
| Gcw (Gcw) Username: Gcw Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 81.155.105.158 |
You just KNOW it will be CGI don't you...? gcw | ||
| Gcw (Gcw) Username: Gcw Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 86.170.202.7 |
And,....... It was SHIT. 1/Dougray Scott -A plank of bloody wood! -he can't act, at least not in this. 2/ Dialogue howlers "If you SEE a triffid! - Oh dear.... 3/ Bore only superficial resemblance to the book. 4/ Eddie Izzard - Chew that scenery! 5/ Triffids. Not subtle are they? (chomp, chomp..) Why oh why oh bloody why do they have to take a classic & just totally fuck it up against a wall? Yeah, I know, I am a grumpy hard to please old bastard these days, but at least I have standards. This made 'new' Doctor Who look like high art. grrrr...... gcw. | ||
| Gcw (Gcw) Username: Gcw Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 86.170.202.7 |
Also..... If triffids were so dangerous then why did Spud from Trainspotting just bloody walk in to their 'pen' ?? Jesus! gcw | ||
| Stu (Stu) Username: Stu Registered: 04-2008 Posted From: 86.29.190.42 |
I agree with your list although my blood pressure isn't climbing quite so high as yours. I'm still hoping they can turn it around. Could just be blind optimism though. One thing that did piss me off was that the world's foremost expert on Triffids keeps harping on about how dangerous they are but when he goes back to the farm doesn't even bother picking up a pair of the protective goggles he used to wear when dealing with them. And why did the personnel at the farm only wear goggles anyway? Surely a protective suit would make more sense? Just 'cos the Triffids aim for the eyes doesn't mean that the sting won't hit you on another part of the body. | ||
| Stu (Stu) Username: Stu Registered: 04-2008 Posted From: 86.29.190.42 |
Although there were a couple of okay bits I did find it quite boring in places and wished the Beeb had adapted THE DEATH OF GRASS instead. But then that would look too much like SURVIVORS. TRIFFIDS gives you not only post-apocalytpic action but man-eating plants. Plus TRIFFIDS is easier to sell overseas 'cos it's more recognisable. And the Beeb wheeled out as many US friendly faces as possible with stars from MISSION IMPOSSIBLE 2, NIP/TUCK, THE RICHES, TRAINSPOTTING, X-MEN 2 and, um, BEVERLY HILLS 90210. | ||
| Stu (Stu) Username: Stu Registered: 04-2008 Posted From: 86.29.190.42 |
Was also amused/irritated by the fact that out of all the people working at the farm who could have driven the hero to the hospital they chose the one person who had been knocked unconscious five minutes earlier. And if they wanted to keep the Triffids' killing tendencies secret why the hell didn't they have their own medical facilities instead of having to race him to a hospital and then have to reveal to the doctor that he had been attacked by a Triffid? | ||
| Mick Curtis (Mick) Username: Mick Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 86.176.126.207 |
I watched the Quentin Crisp thing on ITV instead of Triffids - sounds like I made the right move | ||
| Zed (Gary_mc) Username: Gary_mc Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 81.96.240.106 |
Full of plot holes, yes, but I thought it was okay. The show could have benefitted from a decent script (maybe from Steve Volk, or someone else as well versed in the genre), but I actually rather enjoyed it. It wasn't great; nor was it the shit I expected. There were enough flashes of semi-goodness, I think, to justify me staying with it. | ||
| Joel (Joel) Username: Joel Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 91.110.210.116 |
"There were enough flashes of semi-goodness, I think, to justify me staying with it." Blurb of the year!  | ||
| Zed (Gary_mc) Username: Gary_mc Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 81.96.240.106 |
They call me The Blurbist. | ||
| Weber_gregston (Weber_gregston) Username: Weber_gregston Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 194.176.105.56 |
Among other names... | ||
| Stephen Walsh (Stephenw) Username: Stephenw Registered: 03-2009 Posted From: 82.17.252.126 |
Glad I decided to give this a miss! | ||
| Zed (Gary_mc) Username: Gary_mc Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 81.96.240.106 |
The second ep. was slightly better than the first. As a whole, the thing was rather badly done, but still enjoyable in a guilty pleasure kind of way. It's probably the best I'd expect for a genre-based show in a prime time BBC slot. The good news is: Survivors is back in a couple of weeks. Now there's a show that totally grew on me. | ||
| Paul_finch (Paul_finch) Username: Paul_finch Registered: 11-2009 Posted From: 195.93.21.74 |
I got the feeling that it was originally scheduled to be 3 episodes long, and then yet another of those high, mighty and oh-so-qualified people in the rarified atmosphere at the top of the BBC tower suddenly decided to cut it down to 2, discarding all sorts of good and useful stuff in the process. The narrative didn't run smoothly for me at all, characters got zilch development and plot holes abounded. A big missed opportunity in my opinion, though why TV companies keep coming back to DAY OF THE TRIFFIDS, I don't know. As others have already said, it's been done very well on two occasions before, and this version brought nothing new to the party. As for Eddie Izzard - I can only say that I knew scarier characters at school. | ||
| Weber_gregston (Weber_gregston) Username: Weber_gregston Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 194.176.105.56 |
Could you really survive a plane crash unscathed the way he did? That seemed extremely stupid - and out of sync with the general timeline at that point in the story. | ||
| Zed (Gary_mc) Username: Gary_mc Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 81.96.240.106 |
Oh, it was completely stupid - all of it. But mindless entertainment. Rather this than Big Brother. | ||
| Weber_gregston (Weber_gregston) Username: Weber_gregston Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 194.176.105.56 |
I'll give it that much. The front page of one of the papers says that Jordan's ex-boyfriend is one of this year's "celebs" but - "in one of big brother's biggest twists" - will be in drag and calling himself Roxanne for the entire time he's in there. Already the tone has been set lower than it's ever been. Rest assured I will be avoiding as much as it's possible to. | ||
| Seanmcd (Seanmcd) Username: Seanmcd Registered: 03-2009 Posted From: 86.171.240.161 |
Triffids was entertaining and too short. It should have ran for at least 2 more installments. Then again maybe not.  | ||
| Gcw (Gcw) Username: Gcw Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 86.170.202.7 |
There were more holes in the plot than a pair of fishnet tights. 1/Where did the Nun go? 2/What was all the rubbing Triffid goo in the eyes about? 3/We have a plan to kill off the Triffids - now we don't. 4/Survivors is better & back in a couple of weeks. Seriously, this was dreadful cack, No, no,no - just not good enough. gcw | ||
| Mick Curtis (Mick) Username: Mick Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 86.176.126.207 |
You've saved me three hours of my life, GCW - cheers! | ||
| Carolinec (Carolinec) Username: Carolinec Registered: 06-2009 Posted From: 82.38.75.85 |
I saw a bit of DotT last night - hubby was watching it as his sport had finished. I was washing up, heard a scream from the living room, and went to investigate. No, it wasn't hubby's reaction to DotT, it was a triffid attacking a girl. I must say I've seen better carnivorous plant special effect on stage in Little Shop of Horrors. It was better than the vervoids in the Doc Who story, Terror of the Vervoids, though! Glad I didn't waste 3 hours on this too. Turn of the Screw looks like it might be worth watching tonight though ... | ||
| Paul_finch (Paul_finch) Username: Paul_finch Registered: 11-2009 Posted From: 92.19.136.192 |
Sorry Caroline. It wasn't. | ||
| Mick Curtis (Mick) Username: Mick Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 86.176.126.207 |
This is great - GCW saved me three hours and now Mr Finch saves me another 90 minutes! | ||
| Alansjf (Alansjf) Username: Alansjf Registered: 09-2008 Posted From: 93.96.45.148 |
Sorry Caroline. It wasn't. Have to agree. The book itself and The Innocents are hard acts to follow, and this didn't even come close. I did think there was potential in updating it to post WWI, but that turned out to be a missed opportunity. As for the rest ... there was just no atmosphere. One or two laboured 'scares' and that was it. A real shame, as I'd been looking forward to it. | ||
| Zed (Gary_mc) Username: Gary_mc Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 81.96.240.106 |
We recorded Turn of the Screw to watch tomorrow evening, with fine wine and expensive nibbles (ooh-er). Will report my findigs here. | ||
| Zed (Gary_mc) Username: Gary_mc Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 81.96.240.106 |
findings, even... | ||
| Paul_finch (Paul_finch) Username: Paul_finch Registered: 11-2009 Posted From: 92.19.136.192 |
I don't wish to spoil things for those still to watch TURN OF THE SCREW, so I won't go into the many things I didn't like. And of course I'm not necessarily right - so no-one needs listen to my rants (especially when I've drunk as much 'Old Harry' malt as I have tonight). But for me it was yet more proof that people outside the genre should no longer try to do horror. What it takes to scare an audience these days is way beyond their experience or abilities. | ||
| Gcw (Gcw) Username: Gcw Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 86.170.202.7 |
Soozy recorded this so I expect it will seen soon. I will read a book.... gcw | ||
| Zed (Gary_mc) Username: Gary_mc Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 81.96.240.106 |
people outside the genre should no longer try to do horror. What it takes to scare an audience these days is way beyond their experience or abilities. I hear you, Paul. It's inexcusable, really, when there are genuine genre enthusiasts working in TV whose talents could easily be utilised. | ||
| Soozy (Soozy) Username: Soozy Registered: 09-2009 Posted From: 86.170.202.7 |
Sorry to rain on everones parade, whilst not having any expectations...I enjoyed this! GCW didnt see it as he was practising on his new toy! | ||
| Stephen Walsh (Stephenw) Username: Stephenw Registered: 03-2009 Posted From: 82.17.252.126 |
Didn't bother with this either... nothing can top 'The Innocents'. | ||
| Gcw (Gcw) Username: Gcw Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 86.170.202.7 |
"GCW didnt see it as he was practising on his new toy!" (I am learning keyboards at the moment! - gcw) | ||
| Zed (Gary_mc) Username: Gary_mc Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 81.96.240.106 |
This evening we watched TURN OF THE SCREW. It was okay. Not great. Not rubbish. Just an average adaptation of a terrific novella. I've certainly seen worse, and considering the audience it was aimed at probably don't even know who Henry James was, it was at least watchable. Not at all scary, though. Which was a shame. Just watched the new rebooted STAR TREK, too. Again, not great but not rubbish either. I'd hoped for so much more, but I think AVATAR has raised the bar so high for these kinds of films that they've now almost become redundant. | ||
| Stephen Walsh (Stephenw) Username: Stephenw Registered: 03-2009 Posted From: 82.17.252.126 |
The 'Star Trek' movie was one of the most entertaining "switch your brain off" thrill rides of the year for me. It worked way better than it had any right to. 'Avatar' was a brilliant even awe-inspiring spectacle but despite all the money and time spent on it not a patch on 'Aliens' or either 'Terminator' movie. They were wholly rounded films with believable characters while 'Avatar' was very weak in the story and characterisation department. It was a big fun cartoon with state of the art special effects and nothing more imho. | ||
| Zed (Gary_mc) Username: Gary_mc Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 81.96.240.106 |
People keep going on about Avatar's weak plot, but which recent big-money blockbuster is any different? There was more plot here than in, for example, Transformers, and we even get a theme and a message. Personally, I was gripped by the story - it's a modern fable, and the characters are necassarily archetypes. But I also liked Titanic, so feel free to ignore me.  | ||
| Stephen Walsh (Stephenw) Username: Stephenw Registered: 03-2009 Posted From: 82.17.252.126 |
'Avatar' was a blast - I loved it - but do you really think it will go down as one of the GREAT serious sci-fi movies? '2001 : A Space Odyssey' had theme and message aplenty as well as being chock full of archetypes and I know which one will stand the passage of time better. I just want people to put 'Avatar' in its proper perspective... incredible jaw-dropping spectacle and not a lot else (kinda like the Grand Canyon). | ||
| Stu (Stu) Username: Stu Registered: 04-2008 Posted From: 86.29.187.8 |
>>I've certainly seen worse, and considering the audience it was aimed at probably don't even know who Henry James was, it was at least watchable. Yeah, that was pretty much how I felt about it. Of course I still haven't read the original novella so that probably helped keep the fanboy rage in check. | ||
| Carolinec (Carolinec) Username: Carolinec Registered: 06-2009 Posted From: 82.38.75.85 |
Hmmm, not watched it yet - might not bother. I was in two minds about this anyway. Still got Doc Who to watch too ... | ||
| Carolinec (Carolinec) Username: Carolinec Registered: 06-2009 Posted From: 82.38.75.85 |
I was referring above to the recent Turn of the Screw, of course. | ||
| Zed (Gary_mc) Username: Gary_mc Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 81.96.240.106 |
but do you really think it will go down as one of the GREAT serious sci-fi movies? I very much doubt that AVATAR was even conceived to be a great serious SF film - it's a big, broad, fat-arsed SF blockbuster. Even Cameron would admit that. And as such, it does everything it set out to do, IMHO. It's all about the context. | ||
| Mark_lynch (Mark_lynch) Username: Mark_lynch Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 88.109.39.8 |
We went to see AVATAR, but the car park at the cinema was full, so we didn't bother. Had a drink in a nearly deserted seafood restaurant instead, watche dhte waves roll and churn, the rain sprinkle clouds across the grey. Think we won. | ||
| Seanmcd (Seanmcd) Username: Seanmcd Registered: 03-2009 Posted From: 86.171.240.161 |
'Turn of the Screw' really disappointed me. It wasn't scary or even atmospheric in any way. 'The Innocents' has just left the bar so far out of reach IMO. The only thing that came within it's range recently was 'The Others'. The Dr Who finale sucked too. Too much sentimentality for me I'm afraid. That was the longest most overblown regeneration sequence ever! Including that awful 'lap of honour' around all his previous companions,etc. It was all just too much.Does this now mean every future Doctor must do the same lest they be considered a failure? This just smacked of RTD self congratulation to me. I'm going to see Avatar this weekend hopefully and I'm expecting nothing more than a big entertaining CGI cartoon fest. |