"Consequently I had to halt the vehicle and obtain some mercury to effect a repair."
And where does mercury come from? H.G. Wells. --->
Did you catch the recent TV version of The War of the Worlds? Oh dear. HG Wells' beloved book was stuffed up royally. The adaptation had more incomprehensible flashes back and forth than a pair of AI lighthouses experimenting with optical TCP/IP. Nor did the dramatisers omit to burden their Edwardian characters with jarring, …
So long as we don’t build conducting stairs we should be safe from them by going UPSTAIRS.
I refer my esteemed colleague to the very first appearance on Earth of the Daleks where the inability to climb stairs was indeed critical. We can stand in upstairs windows and upbraid their deficient morality. That’ll tach ‘em.
I believe there are some well-worn words prepared for those securely standing on battlements to hurl down from above.
Whether Daleks have mothers or fathers, though, I don't know, nor if they would know what a hamster was. Or even if they can smell an elderberry...
This might require more thought...
Alas, a lot of action TV and film now has fallen to the curse of "giving the characters emotional, relatable depth". This means there is no dire situation our heroes can find themselves in where it is not appropriate to stop and discuss their domestic and personal problems and, most importantly, how this makes them feel. Fortunately the bad guys and impeding doom they face have the decency to stop shooting/impeding while this discussion occurs. Yes, they're trying to kill you, but there's simply no excuse for oppressing someone's right to free emotional expression.
The previews to the BBC's "adaptation" of War of the Worlds looked really promising but reality was very different. I found the 3 part series extremely dissapointing. The BBC had managed to mangle H G Wells classic sci-fi into a bizarre edition of a cheesy soap opera. The constant flicking between past and future was badly done, especially in the first episode which was as confusing as hell until you realise what was happening.
The BBC can and has done better, with some really good new series, like their adaptation of Dracula which, while it wasn't true to the original was at least very entertaining. "Good Omens" too seems like a jolly good romp so far, a cross between Monty Python and The Omen.
The BBC also screwed up the Jodie Foster version of Dr Who. The first series was dire. Way too touchy feely and politically correct at the expense of some decent Sci-Fi. The new series seems somewhat better, though they are still messing with historical figures too much for my liking.
I actually quite liked the first episode for the most part, but there again I as worried about how they were going to place a female main character in an 1890s story. The end part did confuse me, and I must admit I did assume red scene was similar to Jeff Wayne's stage show addition for why the Martians needed to invade.
The second episode, oh dear, and I really regretted completing the farce. I was left with the impression that the screen writer had never read the book, instead he had been given an overview by a management executive type who also had never read the book. After all not only did they part change the ending they also removed the whole core concept behind the book.
Hope they never consider a rendition of War in the Air, which I personally consider to be a better read, though it was also written 6 years later (1904 - and quite scary for some of it's predictions).
You can easily, as long as it's part of the story as it was written - female main characters were not lacking in 1800s literature, or even dating back to Greek tragedies.
Trying to force one in a story written without, just for political correctness, entice viewers with too little brain, or feed the lust of any Weinstein working on the project, it's quite stupid (just look at the "Hobbit" movie....). It wold be like replacing a couple of Bennet sisters with brothers in Pride and Prejudice - for "gender balance".
"I was left with the impression that the screen writer had never read the book, instead he had been given an overview by a management executive type who also had never read the book."
Probably. Some are even proud they don't read the sources because it would stymie their "creativity", hence often the plot rewrites that no longer stands because there are a few ways to write a good plot, and many ways to write bad ones. And plots that stand time have good chances of being the good ones...
Anyway, they are sure most of the audience had never read the book too....
That is rather unavoidable in a show based around time travel.
They have been doing this for over 50 years, and have also been shoehorning in "emotional moments" for the same length of time. For those think the show is too politically correct, some of the 1960s serials will give you the shivers when you see what very non politically correct Doctor Who looks like.
> That is rather unavoidable in a show based around time travel.
They don't have to go to famous historical figures though, do they? Plenty of Baker/Pertwee plots were set in the past but without being linked to a particularly significant time or place.
The current series is made worse by having the Doctor literally fawn over famous historical figures - ooh Tesla, you're so clever. It's an insult to Whittaker frankly - a male doctor would never be given such lines.
My gripe with the latest Dr (apart from the lefty agenda, etc etc), is that they have totally ignored what happened in previous series. Previous Dr's had a global dalek/cyberman invasion of earth. This lot of companions - "What's a cyberman?", "What's a dalek?" I know they come from up North, but I wouldn't presume that aliens would just ignore Sheffield!
The BBC can and has done better, with some really good new series, like their adaptation of Dracula which, while it wasn't true to the original was at least very entertaining.
My take on that particular effort was that the first episode was good, the second reasonable (although it does stretch out considerably a single small part of the book, and the ending was an obvious plot device to move the timeline forward 100 years), and the third was utter tripe. Anything that uses the "2 weeks later" method of moving the plot on is just being lazy and lacking any creativity. And that ending? WTF was that about? "I'll use reverse psychology on a demonic unspeakable horror to focus on his insecurities to make him kill himself"? Stoker's Dracula would have eaten you without a second thought (and also wouldn't have been harmed by sunlight in the first place), turned himself into a wolf and then eaten your friends and family for good measure...
But vampires now are tender pale creatures who make girls fall in love with them because of their sad story, remember... I find "funny" how many today are attracted by characters who were designed as the epitome of pure evil, and the fight against it (and our evil part mirrored into them, of course).
Have to admit, I was in two minds watching the trailer when I saw that one of the characters was a woman. (Not that I'm against women I hastened to add, but from what I remember from reading the book years ago, was that there wasn't any women in the book, or at least main characters. Apart from the fiancee - and he was going to London to find her, but she had buggered off to France on a ship!)
So, yeah watched most of the first episode, realised that my fears had been confirmed that the BBC had messed about with the original.
What could go wrong?
I watched an episode of "His Dark Materials" - the powerful witch Pekkala's deamon was changed from a goose to a falcon - because modern screenwriters - and their public - know nothing about how much gooses in the ancient past were birds accompanying powerful gods - both in Greek/Roman tradition (there's a reason why Capitol gooses saved Rome...), and Celtic one. So dumb it down to the usual "bird of prey" abused cliché, instead of using it as an interesting juxtaposition - and maybe telling audience it's not important how you look - but how you act.
Ignorance Is Strength
It might be wrong but 'Gooses' is a nice word to use for comic effect. A bit like 'sheeps', 'mouses' etc.
Goose is also a word for the non-PC pinchin of someone's bottom. Gooses would be appropriate for more than one pinch there since you don't 'Geese' bottoms. The importance of gooses in ancient Rome becomes something quite different then.
In Dundee a Goosey (or Gussie) is a segemnt of orange. As in "Guis a gussie".
I seem to recall a children's book when I was an infant form of myself, where the final page had the punchline, "They have their uses, these gooses. I mean geese."
A quick application of a famous web search engine reveals it was "Bod in the Park".
Honestly the thing that bugged me the most was the lack of Daemons for anybody that wasn't important to the story. Oxford University should have looked like a menagerie in the corridors [more than usual, at least - Gen. Melchett] but just wasn't...
..... "We abruptly jump cut to a forest clearing in the year 802,701."
....."Eloi. These latter are all played by good-looking actors in their twenties"
..... "Synergize the crowdsource thoughtleader. Open the kimono: ducks in a row, but chilaxing cockapoos phub the black swan"
You'd have thought that language would have changed a bit, in the 800681 years elapsed since today :)
Time Traveller: Anything you can name. It was very shocking. I heard a doctor – a professional gentleman, mark you – openly split his infinitive while standing in the street. Any guttersnipe could easily audit his ill-chosen words.
Defrocked Lamplighter, baffled: You what?
Time Traveller, warming to his theme: Just so. And what is more, I witnessed a schoolmarm, a steady soul of five-and-thirty summers or more, use an adjective as an adverb. This done with no thought to the innocent ears of her tender charges!
But what about the missing Oxford comma on the new 50p coin? Truly the end of UK civilisation as we know it.
(Hmmm... since it's missing, it can't be "on" the coin, can it? OK then, let's try "But what about the Oxford comma missing from ...?".)
This production had its flaws but I'm not worried by the content updates, which in some ways draw on Wells personal life.
Wells' writing was informed by the social issues of his times e.g. WotW by the genocide of the Tasmanian aborigines. I'm sure he would have received plenty of 1/10 reviews headed "PC snowflake" crap if the book came out now.
In order to remake something with the same sensibility as the original you need to update the social touchpoints.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2020