Members Login
Username 
 
Password 
    Remember Me  
Post Info TOPIC: Thoughts & views on the adaptation....


Undergraduate

Status: Offline
Posts: 304
Date: Apr 9 3:11 PM, 2017
Thoughts & views on the adaptation....
Permalink  
 


LJones41 wrote:

I don't think that Demelza's class alone is a good reason to put her on a pedestal.  Rich or not, she is a human being.  The same goes for Elizabeth.  Both women have flaws and virtues.  And instead of acknowledging this, many fans are willing to put Demelza on a pedestal and at the same time, bash Elizabeth.  And it seems to me that this divergent attitude toward the two women stemmed from Ross' inability to get over Elizabeth and the inability of many fans to consider that Ross is in love with two women - one who happens to be the saga's main female protagonist.  And instead of realizing that Ross is at fault, many want to simply blame Elizabeth.  



-- Edited by LJones41 on Monday 3rd of April 2017 10:29:06 PM


Oh I didn't realize you were talking just about Demelza vs. Elizabeth. I thought you meant Demelza in general. (One thing you have to keep in mind is the character of Demelza was inspired by Winston Graham's wife so of course the books put her in the best light. If you haven't read the second half of Chapter VI from the first edition of "Demelza" -- it's floating around somewhere on the site -- you really should. It is all about Elizabeth, and it definitely colored my opinion of her.)

I have always thought Ross was the truly indecisive one. Not just about Elizabeth. About the mines. About pretty much everything. He didn't decide to go to America to avoid being tried for assaulting a customs officer; his father did. He didn't go to Cusgarne the day after the engagement dinner to demand an explanation from Elizabeth because he didn't want to rock the boat with Uncle Charles.  If Demelza hadn't made the first move, he would have let her father take her home. He'd have missed her, but not enough to do anything about it. Hpeck, how many times was the owner of Wheal Radiant promised the Wheal Grace headgear because Grace was closing?



-- Edited by Dark Mare on Sunday 9th of April 2017 03:12:50 PM

__________________


Student

Status: Offline
Posts: 120
Date: Apr 3 10:17 PM, 2017
Permalink  
 

I don't think that Demelza's class alone is a good reason to put her on a pedestal.  Rich or not, she is a human being.  The same goes for Elizabeth.  Both women have flaws and virtues.  And instead of acknowledging this, many fans are willing to put Demelza on a pedestal and at the same time, bash Elizabeth.  And it seems to me that this divergent attitude toward the two women stemmed from Ross' inability to get over Elizabeth and the inability of many fans to consider that Ross is in love with two women - one who happens to be the saga's main female protagonist.  And instead of realizing that Ross is at fault, many want to simply blame Elizabeth.  



-- Edited by LJones41 on Monday 3rd of April 2017 10:29:06 PM

__________________


Undergraduate

Status: Offline
Posts: 304
Date: Mar 24 8:10 PM, 2017
Permalink  
 

LJones41 wrote:

I keep forgetting that one of the main aspects of the "POLDARK" saga is the glorification of Demelza Carne Poldark.


Maybe I am reading too much into things, but I believe the real appeal of Demelza is she is the mascot of what we in America call the 99 Percent.

She is the proof that the real difference between the Poldarks and the Carnes can be summed up in this oft-quoted (although somewhat apocryphal) exchange between F. Scott Fitzgerald and Ernest Hemingway: 

Fitzgerald had said, "The rich are different from us." Hemingway had replied, "Yes, they have more money."

I believe many of us choose Demelza over Elizabeth as a rejection of the class system that held back our own ancestors. As an American of Irish Catholic ancestry, I know with a certainty that requires no genealogical research to confirm it that there are no squires or baronets or dukes on my family tree. And I know for a fact that once my ancestors relocated to a country that prohibited religious discrimination imposed or fostered by government statute, they were able to thrive and prosper. I am not a member the first generation of my family to receive a university education at family expense, I am a member of the third, and my family had been in America for only four generations when I graduated. 

(I do not mean this as either a general slap at the United Kingdom or a valentine to America. In truth, the modern U.K.'s record for equalizing opportunity has been putting America's to shame for many decades. I use my family's history as the example, even though it is not 100% analogous, because it is the only one I can cite with full confidence.)

 



-- Edited by Dark Mare on Friday 24th of March 2017 08:12:14 PM

__________________


Student

Status: Offline
Posts: 197
Date: Mar 24 10:18 AM, 2017
Permalink  
 

LJones41 wrote:

I keep forgetting that one of the main aspects of the "POLDARK" saga is the glorification of Demelza Carne Poldark.


 I am not sure what you mean either. However Demelza's relationship with Hugh can hardly be described as 'glorification'. WG's crafting of Demelza is, I think, clever and credible. She has her faults as do we all and they are included in the books.



__________________


Initiate

Status: Offline
Posts: 86
Date: Mar 22 7:35 PM, 2017
Permalink  
 

That's an odd comment - not sure what you mean?



__________________


Student

Status: Offline
Posts: 120
Date: Mar 22 7:04 PM, 2017
Permalink  
 

I keep forgetting that one of the main aspects of the "POLDARK" saga is the glorification of Demelza Carne Poldark.



__________________


Initiate

Status: Offline
Posts: 86
Date: Mar 22 5:47 PM, 2017
Permalink  
 

So is her hair! But really, she's a miner's daughter - in the world where she grew up, domestic violence (both ways) would have been quite common. She wouldn't give too much of a fig about social niceties. 

 



__________________


Student

Status: Offline
Posts: 120
Date: Mar 22 3:55 PM, 2017
Permalink  
 

Wasn't Demelza's punch rather anachronistic?



__________________


Undergraduate

Status: Offline
Posts: 304
Date: Mar 21 6:26 PM, 2017
Permalink  
 

faith101 wrote:
Dark Mare wrote:
faith101 wrote:

I'm just tired of seeing George box in every scene, but other than that in a few minor of the details I love this version from Start to finish and minus a few deviations, the characterizations of each character is phenomenal!



-- Edited by faith101 on Monday 24th of October 2016 06:43:23 AM


 I was too until I saw the last scene of Episode 8. He's training for his next run-in with Ross, but there is a new Poldark champion, Demelza. She decked Ross with one punch. Actually, it looked like she backhanded him with a closed fist. Anyway, look out, George!


 Right. she back-smacked him to 1667...LOL 

          ____________________________________________________________

If not earlier. I've got to wonder whether Demelza learned that backhand from her father. I noticed that Ross made good use of the head-butting move Tom Carne used to good effect on him.

Here's a question: Why did Ross tell Captain Henshaw the truth about the source of his black eye but lie to Dwight about it (When Dwight asked whether the injury was from the mine accident, he said it must have been.)? Was it because Henshaw had burst out laughing when he heard Demelza had done it and Ross didn't want to be laughed at again? Or did he think Dwight would think less of Demelza if he knew the truth? Or did he expect Dwight to demand to know what colossally rotten and stupid thing he had done or said to provoke such a reaction from Demelza -- and then blacken his other eye once he heard it?



__________________


Newbie

Status: Offline
Posts: 20
Date: Mar 18 5:46 PM, 2017
Permalink  
 

Dark Mare wrote:
faith101 wrote:

I'm just tired of seeing George box in every scene, but other than that in a few minor of the details I love this version from Start to finish and minus a few deviations, the characterizations of each character is phenomenal!



-- Edited by faith101 on Monday 24th of October 2016 06:43:23 AM


 I was too until I saw the last scene of Episode 8. He's training for his next run-in with Ross, but there is a new Poldark champion, Demelza. She decked Ross with one punch. Actually, it looked like she backhanded him with a closed fist. Anyway, look out, George!


 Right. she back-smacked him to 1667...LOL 



__________________

 

 



Initiate

Status: Offline
Posts: 86
Date: Mar 2 10:59 AM, 2017
Permalink  
 

Dark Mare wrote:
SusanneMcCarthy wrote:

... (would George really have taken his lawyer to an aristocratic house party?) ...


 

What got me about him taking Tankard to Sir Hugh's party to seduce Demelza was Tankard expressing shock at Demelza having once been a scullery maid. In Episode 1, he listened to George read from the scandal sheet about Ross. It states "... He bedded and wedded his scullery maid, from whom he got his latest brat ...." In Episode 2, he expressed confidence in George being able to get Ross' Wheal Leisure shares away from Demelza for a pittance once Ross is hanged, saying, "Was she not his kitchen maid? She will give us no trouble." To which George said, "Do not believe it."  

It can't be that Tankard didn't know what Demelza looked like. He'd seen her in court in Bodmin. OK, she does "clean up" well, but still... Actually, it would have made more sense if he'd asked whether that elegant creature is really the same woman he'd seen in court. 

Don't actors remember the lines they've spoken? How many scenes was Tankard in? Don't actors have an obligation to point out discrepancies? 


 I wondered at the time if they'd just used Tankard instead of getting another actor in. I know that they frequently need to "combine" characters (eg Nicholas and Cary Warleggan) for the sake of brevity - and not spending too much money - but that one seems ill-thought-out. 



__________________


Honorary Life Member. Forum Moderator

Status: Offline
Posts: 655
Date: Mar 2 9:37 AM, 2017
Permalink  
 

Dark Mare Wrote:

I do find it impossible to believe that Claude Henry Poldark didn't grant a right of way across Trenwith land to the owner of Nampara and occupants of its rental properties at the time he was dividing his property between sons Charles and Joshua. Trenwith had access to the public road, and Nampara did not. Landlocked property has practically no value.

_________________________________________________________________________________

I think you may have misinterpreted the geography of the area, Dark Mare.  Trenwith and Nampara were not contiguous.  There were areas of scrub and mining waste, cottages and common land between the two properties,

Both places were off the beaten track, and although Trenwith was closer to the 'road', it wasn't that easily accessible.  Nampara was more difficult to reach and impossibly dangerous for a coach, but it wasn't necessary to cross Trenwith land to get to the main tracks and hence to the turnpike road. In any case, the 'roads' would not have been made up stretches, just well-worn tracks, but still rutted and muddy.  Even the turnpikes had no proper surface until about 1815.

It may be true in America, but certainly was not in 18th and 19th century England, that land-locked property had no value, if by land-locked you mean without a good track to it.  If you mean entirely surrounded by property belonging to one owner, then that is not the case here.  Neither is Nampara land-locked in another sense, since it has as a northern boundary the coast, and therefore is accessible to Sawle, Trevaunance and any other place they wish to sail to.

Today, I shudder to think what a property like Nampara would be worth.  Sea views and tucked away in a valley, it would certainly be unaffordable by locals.  Recently, an ordinary 60s 4 bed house on a very exposed cliff-top, amidst others and with a small garden was on the market for in excess of £1.7m. 


 



__________________


Student

Status: Offline
Posts: 120
Date: Mar 2 1:22 AM, 2017
Permalink  
 

Don't actors have an obligation to point out discrepancies?

 

Perhaps.  Perhaps not.  But the burden is more on the director and script supervisor.



-- Edited by LJones41 on Thursday 2nd of March 2017 01:22:33 AM

__________________


Undergraduate

Status: Offline
Posts: 304
Date: Mar 2 12:44 AM, 2017
Permalink  
 

SusanneMcCarthy wrote:

... (would George really have taken his lawyer to an aristocratic house party?) ...


 

What got me about him taking Tankard to Sir Hugh's party to seduce Demelza was Tankard expressing shock at Demelza having once been a scullery maid. In Episode 1, he listened to George read from the scandal sheet about Ross. It states "... He bedded and wedded his scullery maid, from whom he got his latest brat ...." In Episode 2, he expressed confidence in George being able to get Ross' Wheal Leisure shares away from Demelza for a pittance once Ross is hanged, saying, "Was she not his kitchen maid? She will give us no trouble." To which George said, "Do not believe it."  

It can't be that Tankard didn't know what Demelza looked like. He'd seen her in court in Bodmin. OK, she does "clean up" well, but still... Actually, it would have made more sense if he'd asked whether that elegant creature is really the same woman he'd seen in court. 

Don't actors remember the lines they've spoken? How many scenes was Tankard in? Don't actors have an obligation to point out discrepancies? 



__________________


Student

Status: Offline
Posts: 120
Date: Mar 2 12:39 AM, 2017
Permalink  
 

As for the fences, yes, the owner of the property has the right to build fences, but George isn't the real owner of the property. (He overstepped, and Elizabeth allowed him to get away with it.)

 

 

Who was going to stop George?  His wife?  This is 1793 we're talking about, not 2016.  Geoffrey Charles is now George's stepson.  And until he comes of age and is old enough to take control of Trenwith, he has no say in the matter.  As George's wife, neither does Elizabeth.

 

But only when they are at home I think. I cannot recall seeing any of the actresses wearing their hair down when visiting others apart from Demelza when they drove into Truro to sell all their belongings.

 

I hope that Eleanor Tomlinson will stop wearing her hair down.  And I hope that the production's hairstylist will be a little more historically accurate with her hairstyle.

 

 

 Landlocked property has practically no value.

 

Are you speaking of land that has been enclosed, or are you speaking of another type of landlocked property?

 



-- Edited by LJones41 on Thursday 2nd of March 2017 01:19:49 AM

__________________


Administration

Status: Offline
Posts: 1566
Date: Feb 28 9:13 PM, 2017
Permalink  
 

Topic transferred from "Hector McNeil"

Date: Feb 26 11.00 PM. 2017

Dark Mare

Of course it was wrong, but this is television, not a book. The camera needs something exciting to look at from time to time. A nighttime fire fills that bill. 

As for the fences, yes, the owner of the property has the right to build fences, but George isn't the real owner of the property. (He overstepped, and Elizabeth allowed him to get away with it.)

I do find it impossible to believe that Claude Henry Poldark didn't grant a right of way across Trenwith land to the owner of Nampara and occupants of its rental properties at the time he was dividing his property between sons Charles and Joshua. Trenwith had access to the public road, and Nampara did not. Landlocked property has practically no value.

_________________________________________________________________________________

Feb 24 3:22 PM, 2017

Susanne McArthy

The 1975 series seemed in a number of ways to be excessively "dramatised" - eg the circumstances around Ross & Demelza's marriage, and the burning down of Trenwith. I, like many readers, were disappointed in this aspect of the series. I think the current series has toned that down, and so is much better.



__________________

"Perfection is a full stop .... Ever the climbing but never the attaining Of the mountain top." W.G.

 

 



Undergraduate

Status: Offline
Posts: 304
Date: Feb 27 1:30 AM, 2017
Permalink  
 

Stella Poldark wrote:
LJones41 wrote:

I have a minor complaint to make.  Hairstyles.  When will this production stop having the younger actresses wear their hair down?  It is historically inaccurate.


 But only when they are at home I think. I cannot recall seeing any of the actresses wearing their hair down when visiting others apart from Demelza when they drove into Truro to sell all their belongings.


It's funny. I thought the more relaxed hairstyles on Elizabeth were supposed to be another sign of her reduced circumstances. She and Francis were down to two servants, and she didn't even have Verity to help her with her hair.



__________________


Student

Status: Offline
Posts: 197
Date: Feb 26 7:30 PM, 2017
Permalink  
 

LJones41 wrote:

I have a minor complaint to make.  Hairstyles.  When will this production stop having the younger actresses wear their hair down?  It is historically inaccurate.


 But only when they are at home I think. I cannot recall seeing any of the actresses wearing their hair down when visiting others apart from Demelza when they drove into Truro to sell all their belongings.



__________________


Student

Status: Offline
Posts: 120
Date: Feb 26 8:11 AM, 2017
Permalink  
 

I have a minor complaint to make.  Hairstyles.  When will this production stop having the younger actresses wear their hair down?  It is historically inaccurate.



__________________


Initiate

Status: Offline
Posts: 86
Date: Dec 3 10:12 PM, 2016
Permalink  
 

I just bought the DVD  and I'm re-watching it. On the whole I like it, up until the last episode. Yes, there are a lot of small changes, some of which are irritating (would George really have taken his lawyer to an aristocratic house party?) but I can live with most of them. It makes it fresher and more interesting than a slavish make-up of the books. I like that Verity's in it much more, and that becomes a good device for dealing with a lot of Demelza's inner thoughts. I love the Dwight/Caroline theme, and they both play it really well. And mostly, up to the last episode, the "Romelza" (ugh!) romance is really well done. 

I've already expressed my views on the final episode, so I won't rehash that. I'm just keeping my fingers crossed for Series 3.



__________________


Student

Status: Offline
Posts: 197
Date: Nov 8 3:14 PM, 2016
Permalink  
 

JanetMaison wrote:

I'm wondering ... do you think Andrew Graham approves of Series 2?


 This is a good question. In September 2015 I went to a discussion and book signing event at the Falmouth Poly. The panel comprised Andrew Graham, Debbie Horsfield and Eleanor Tomlinson. Andrew Graham seemed very enthusiastic about it then and was happy to chat to people after. Since then, although he maintains his advisory role, he seems less involved and has not, to my knowledge, attended any other Poldark event of this kind. He probably has his own life to get on with, which is a pity, as his contribution in Falmouth was very interesting. The interests of Mammoth and the publishers appear to have taken over everything and so has the profit aspect no doubt. DH seems to consult him as and when she needs to and I think her needs were great in the first series but perhaps less so now. She may want to exert her own authority which she appears to have begun to do in series 2.

Stella



-- Edited by Stella Poldark on Tuesday 8th of November 2016 03:18:29 PM

__________________


Initiate

Status: Offline
Posts: 71
Date: Nov 8 7:13 AM, 2016
Permalink  
 

I'm wondering ... do you think Andrew Graham approves of Series 2?



__________________


Initiate

Status: Offline
Posts: 71
Date: Nov 6 7:03 PM, 2016
Permalink  
 

Upon viewing this video of BFI panel this past August (at minute 11:00 - Thank you Mrs. Martin) (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OWRqkyLotcE) and reading Stella's post (http://poldark.activeboard.com/t62859505/futures-series-of-poldark-spoiler-alert/), it seems clear that DH's intention was to make Demelza more feisty.  I could have lived with that, but I disagree with their definition of feisty.  Being a feisty, modern woman does not equal being an aggressive, belittling harpy.  I think it's back to the books for me.



__________________


Student

Status: Offline
Posts: 120
Date: Nov 5 7:55 PM, 2016
Permalink  
 

So, the conflict that Ross and Dwight will be participating in is the "War of the First Coalition" - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_the_First_Coalition? 



__________________


Initiate

Status: Offline
Posts: 71
Date: Nov 2 2:52 PM, 2016
Permalink  
 

I don't see how it's possible, but here's the reply to an email I sent to Mammoth Screen yesterday.  By the way, Billy's email is Billy@Mammothscreen.com. 

Hello Janet,

 

Following your email to Mammoths enquires address I can confirm that series 2 will conclude the events in Winston Grahams Warleggan title. Series 3 draws upon events in the following two titles of the Poldark novel series.

 

Regards,

 

B

 

Billy Cook

Script Editor

Poldark 3

 

Mammoth Screen Limited, 142-144 New Cavendish St, London, W1W 6YF

0207 268 0050



__________________


Initiate

Status: Offline
Posts: 71
Date: Nov 1 5:43 PM, 2016
Permalink  
 

Mrs Gimlett wrote:

If the series doesn't end with Christmas Eve and the fermenting ale, I shall never watch another episode!


 I'm with you!  But I don't see how they possibly can squeeze it all in.



-- Edited by JanetMaison on Wednesday 2nd of November 2016 05:53:22 AM

__________________


Honorary Life Member. Forum Moderator

Status: Offline
Posts: 655
Date: Nov 1 5:35 PM, 2016
Permalink  
 

If the series doesn't end with Christmas Eve and the fermenting ale, I shall never watch another episode!



__________________


Initiate

Status: Offline
Posts: 71
Date: Nov 1 5:19 PM, 2016
Permalink  
 

After seeing all the previews and taking into account everything that has to happen by the end of Warleggan, it seems impossible there is enough time.  It occurred to me then DH, perhaps, will not finish this series with the reconciliation.  Maybe it will be a cliffhanger?  She has said that this series covers all of books 3 and 4.  But how can it? I would be furious.  Your thoughts?



__________________


Undergraduate

Status: Offline
Posts: 304
Date: Oct 25 2:43 PM, 2016
Permalink  
 

faith101 wrote:

I'm just tired of seeing George box in every scene, but other than that in a few minor of the details I love this version from Start to finish and minus a few deviations, the characterizations of each character is phenomenal!



-- Edited by faith101 on Monday 24th of October 2016 06:43:23 AM


 I was too until I saw the last scene of Episode 8. He's training for his next run-in with Ross, but there is a new Poldark champion, Demelza. She decked Ross with one punch. Actually, it looked like she backhanded him with a closed fist. Anyway, look out, George!



__________________


Student

Status: Offline
Posts: 143
Date: Oct 25 1:33 AM, 2016
Permalink  
 

Once I became reconciled to a totally unrecognisable Elizabeth, and changes to George, I am mostly happy with the series. Some things have been done very well, mostly with the minor characters, and of course the setting and scenery is a huge part of the beauty of the show. Francis started wrong but gradually became "right" so I can forgive that. Maybe we can hope that after "May 9th" Elizabeth will assume her true character. I can't see how they can show the marriage to George, and the Morwenna storyline without making her more cold and harsh.

With regards to Ross and Demelza, Aidan and Elinor ARE Ross and Demelza (I could never get past the first few episodes of the 1975 adaptation, so I have little attachement to Robin and Angharad) and I just love seeing them on screen. Yes, sometimes they are acting out of character, and a lot of the tenderness has been left out, but I just project the tender romance onto them, as "fill-in" scenes in my head.



-- Edited by Fijane on Tuesday 25th of October 2016 01:35:33 AM



-- Edited by Fijane on Tuesday 25th of October 2016 01:37:30 AM

__________________


Newbie

Status: Offline
Posts: 14
Date: Oct 24 11:36 AM, 2016
Permalink  
 

I have really enjoyed this season, and although there are changes, that doesn't bother me as we always have the books. I see a post for Episode 8 has just been posted so I will reply there about May 9th....

But overall I am a great fan of the current adaptation, Sunday nights have never been so good, and there will be a long wait for season 3 so in the meantime will start the books again from the beginning. xxx

 



__________________


Newbie

Status: Offline
Posts: 20
Date: Oct 24 6:35 AM, 2016
Permalink  
 

I'm just tired of seeing George box in every scene, but other than that in a few minor of the details I love this version from Start to finish and minus a few deviations, the characterizations of each character is phenomenal!



-- Edited by faith101 on Monday 24th of October 2016 06:43:23 AM

__________________

 

 



Student

Status: Offline
Posts: 120
Date: Oct 23 8:27 PM, 2016
Permalink  
 

Mrs Gimlett wrote:

Just what I was going to say Stella.  Apart from Elizabeth and George, who feature far more than in the book (Warleggan), it does get better.  In fact several of us thought episode 7 was the best so far.

As has been mentioned before; if you love the books, it's best to treat the TV production as a separate entity entirely.  That way you are not too disappointed in the sudden departures from what we all love in the books.  Sometimes you can be pleasantly surprised too.

I don't know if JanetMaison has read our comments about the episodes she hasn't seen, so will not say more in case you want to see for yourself first.

 

 


 

 

I suppose that is the best way to treat any adaptation.  There are times, however, I do wish that certain aspects of a plotline from a novel had not been changed.  I'm speaking from past experience with other adaptations.



__________________


Initiate

Status: Offline
Posts: 71
Date: Oct 22 5:10 AM, 2016
Permalink  
 

Stella and Mrs. Gimlet - I think you are right that it is best to treat the books as separate entirely from the TV show. It's not always easy. But it feels like such a betrayal when they get something so wrong. I've purchased the series on Apple, but I think I will wait until the entire series has downloaded before I watch anymore. I have read the posts about the episodes already aired in Britain. It helps to prepare myself!  Thank you.

Janet in Seattle 



__________________


Honorary Life Member. Forum Moderator

Status: Offline
Posts: 655
Date: Oct 21 5:52 PM, 2016
Permalink  
 

Just what I was going to say Stella.  Apart from Elizabeth and George, who feature far more than in the book (Warleggan), it does get better.  In fact several of us thought episode 7 was the best so far.

As has been mentioned before; if you love the books, it's best to treat the TV production as a separate entity entirely.  That way you are not too disappointed in the sudden departures from what we all love in the books.  Sometimes you can be pleasantly surprised too.

I don't know if JanetMaison has read our comments about the episodes she hasn't seen, so will not say more in case you want to see for yourself first.

 

 



__________________


Student

Status: Offline
Posts: 197
Date: Oct 21 2:20 PM, 2016
Permalink  
 

JanetMaison wrote:

I felt compelled to write this post because I just saw Episodes 3 and 4. I was excited to see the new series, but I have to say my worst fears have come true. I know when translating books onto the TV screen, certain characters have to be omitted and events must be compressed. However, I believe that DH has changed the essential natures of the characters - primarily Elizabeth, but also Ross and Demelza. After the birth of Julia, Elizabeth makes a concerted effort to gain the upper hand with Ross. She doesn't love him; I don't think she's capable of loving anyone. (George is the perfect partner for her.)  She just wants to be #1. She is not the kind, innocent, working-in-the-field woman. In the Christmas kitchen scene, Ross did not try to kiss Elizabeth. He was indeed flirting with her (I like that dress), but he would not have kissed her. And Elizabeth would not be the one telling him to go to bed - as if! (BTW, I do have some sympathy for Elizabeth; she is a victim of her time, class and culture.)  DH has said that she made the TV Elizabeth nicer so we could understand Ross's attraction. I think that is a mistake. The point is Ross is attracted to Elizabeth and idealizes her; he never "sees" her until May 9th.

I am aware that it is difficult to convey the internal dialogue of the books - and Graham uses a lot of internal dialogue. However, I think DH has been ham-handed in having characters verbalize things they would never say out loud. I would have preferred voice-overs. Demelza would never have criticized Ross for looking at another woman. That was part of the problem!  She saw Ross's attention to Elizabeth and never said anything. And Ross would never have said to Demelza "what man doesn't look at another woman." In the book, he is having an internal argument with himself; he feels guilty about his interest in Elizabeth.  It is also disappointing to see DH build tension between Ross and Demelza with their nasty bickering. In the Miller's Dance, Ross says "It has always been a matter of pride between us that we do not get irritable with each other."  They don't bicker and they dont argue about petty things.

I don't know if I can watch anymore. I believe DH has removed much of the nuance from the characters.  Instead of three-dimensional characters - flawed and complex - we get black and white. May 9th happens for a lot of reasons - it is NOT love. As Ross says in The Twisted Sword, it was a "few minutes of anger and lust and overpowering frustration."  I fear that in trying to reach a large audience, DH has sanitized some of the more uncomfortable details. Consequently we cannot have the hero forcing himself on Elizabeth (even if she toyed with him for two years and she eventually enjoys the sex). I don't think we will hear the TV Ross telling Elizabeth it is time she was treated as a slut.

 

I'm so invested in the story - the written words of Winston Graham. He develops his characters so expertly; they are never easy and never one-dimensional. They are complex - like real life. Characters we like do infuriating things - just like real life. Thank you for allowing me to express my frustration.


 Although I agree with most of what you say Janet, I would like to encourage you to watch a bit more. From episode 4 onwards the production gets less frenetic and closer to the books. In the UK we have watched up to and including episode 7 and some others have found that it improves. I cannot say if this will continue in the last 3 episodes but I hope so. 

Stella 



__________________


Initiate

Status: Offline
Posts: 71
Date: Oct 21 4:10 AM, 2016
Permalink  
 

I felt compelled to write this post because I just saw Episodes 3 and 4. I was excited to see the new series, but I have to say my worst fears have come true. I know when translating books onto the TV screen, certain characters have to be omitted and events must be compressed. However, I believe that DH has changed the essential natures of the characters - primarily Elizabeth, but also Ross and Demelza. After the birth of Julia, Elizabeth makes a concerted effort to gain the upper hand with Ross. She doesn't love him; I don't think she's capable of loving anyone. (George is the perfect partner for her.)  She just wants to be #1. She is not the kind, innocent, working-in-the-field woman. In the Christmas kitchen scene, Ross did not try to kiss Elizabeth. He was indeed flirting with her (I like that dress), but he would not have kissed her. And Elizabeth would not be the one telling him to go to bed - as if! (BTW, I do have some sympathy for Elizabeth; she is a victim of her time, class and culture.)  DH has said that she made the TV Elizabeth nicer so we could understand Ross's attraction. I think that is a mistake. The point is Ross is attracted to Elizabeth and idealizes her; he never "sees" her until May 9th.

I am aware that it is difficult to convey the internal dialogue of the books - and Graham uses a lot of internal dialogue. However, I think DH has been ham-handed in having characters verbalize things they would never say out loud. I would have preferred voice-overs. Demelza would never have criticized Ross for looking at another woman. That was part of the problem!  She saw Ross's attention to Elizabeth and never said anything. And Ross would never have said to Demelza "what man doesn't look at another woman." In the book, he is having an internal argument with himself; he feels guilty about his interest in Elizabeth.  It is also disappointing to see DH build tension between Ross and Demelza with their nasty bickering. In the Miller's Dance, Ross says "It has always been a matter of pride between us that we do not get irritable with each other."  They don't bicker and they dont argue about petty things.

I don't know if I can watch anymore. I believe DH has removed much of the nuance from the characters.  Instead of three-dimensional characters - flawed and complex - we get black and white. May 9th happens for a lot of reasons - it is NOT love. As Ross says in The Twisted Sword, it was a "few minutes of anger and lust and overpowering frustration."  I fear that in trying to reach a large audience, DH has sanitized some of the more uncomfortable details. Consequently we cannot have the hero forcing himself on Elizabeth (even if she toyed with him for two years and she eventually enjoys the sex). I don't think we will hear the TV Ross telling Elizabeth it is time she was treated as a slut.

 

I'm so invested in the story - the written words of Winston Graham. He develops his characters so expertly; they are never easy and never one-dimensional. They are complex - like real life. Characters we like do infuriating things - just like real life. Thank you for allowing me to express my frustration.



__________________


Student

Status: Offline
Posts: 120
Date: Jul 13 4:40 AM, 2016
Permalink  
 

I'm watching both the 1975 and 2015 adaptations simultaneously.  Neither adaptations are perfect.  But I think the 2015 version has a slight edge, due to it adhering a little closer to Graham's novels, without any unnecessary changes.  Overall, I regard both are very entertaining, but flawed.



__________________


Honorary Life Member

Status: Offline
Posts: 298
Date: Feb 18 2:03 AM, 2016
Permalink  
 

Great to read the views of everyone about the characters as they are adapted for this new screen adaptation. Great too that the creations of Winston Graham inspire such conversations. 

For myself, I've had to become less emotionally invested and simply enjoy the series, which I believe is very good, otherwise I'd be frustrated altogether!

 



__________________
SMOLLETT


Honorary Life Member. Forum Moderator

Status: Offline
Posts: 655
Date: Feb 12 3:16 PM, 2016
Permalink  
 

As we know the 70s adaptation went off piste in many parts of the series, unfortunately.  However, I had high hopes that this new series would be much closer to the books, which for the most part it is.

To my mind, Jud and Prudie are not the curmudgeonly comic couple who weave their way unsteadily through the books.  In fact, they seem thoroughly at odds with the rest of the story.  I expect they will feature in the next tranche to be aired but I would be delighted to see the Gimletts make their mark.

It will be interesting to see how the next events are tackled. 

I think another thing that struck me was that Truro seemed to be just around the corner from Nampara, when in fact it is supposed to be 11 miles away. 

It's fun to speculate but will be interesting to see if our thoughts are actually played out.

Old Ma G



-- Edited by Mrs Gimlett on Friday 12th of February 2016 03:17:36 PM

__________________


Student

Status: Offline
Posts: 111
Date: Feb 11 3:16 PM, 2016
Permalink  
 

I agree, Mrs Gimlett, with the wreck/Warleggan scenes.  I found the message receiving scenes with George quite frustrating.  I was like, 'How would anyone even know in Truro about the wreck, how would he have got that information, who was sending it to him?!'  I found it very unrequired.  I don't think that George is right, at all.  The scene with Geroge and Margaret at his house really annoyed me too.  George would never have bedded her, he was always very careful about that kind of thing.  I thought that it was a huge diversion from his characterization in the book and just not right. 

Also, I agree with you about the Gimletts, they were also missing from the 70s adaptation for some reason.  I can only guess that they were left out of the 70s version to bring back Jud and Prudie into the house, as I think they were probably very popular characters.  Also missing is Jack Cobbledick, for some reason, but, I suppose that he's not really essential to the storylines going forward.  But doesn't that mean that at the end of this first new series, the Poldarks have no servants?  Or just Jinny?

I'm also curious as to how storylines which occur much later in the books are going to pan out.  In the new version, Jinny has only had one baby, which I think has been referred to as Kate at some point (?).  So, what about Ben?  I think that he has quite an important part to play in the later storylines with regards to Clowance, if we get that far, that is.

On the whole, though, I'm glad that they've have stuck much closer to the books than the 70s version, and I think that Turner and Tomlinson have done an excellent job in their roles as Ross and Demelza.



__________________


Honorary Life Member. Forum Moderator

Status: Offline
Posts: 655
Date: Feb 5 4:23 PM, 2016
Permalink  
 

I think there are several parts of the adaptation which stick out like sore thumbs.  To begin with George Warleggan is not half so debonair and idle in the books.  He keeps his head down ever accumulating and casting his greedy eyes on his next 'project'.  He couldn't possibly have been on the beach the morning after the wrecks came in - news would hardly have reached Truro by then.  His meetings with Ross seem clunky, rather than wary, which certainly is how their meetings are portrayed in the books.

Now Elizabeth.  In my opinion they have her all wrong.  She needs to be far more aloof, 'exclusive', and allow things to happen around her, whilst she sits unaffected by what is going on. She lavished all her love on Geoffrey Charles and thought she loved Ross, but, as with him, she loved an ideal, a figure, perhaps built up by her whilst Ross was away.  They would never have been right for each other.  On screen she is a much warmer personality, but she would never, never have visited Demelza except under duress.  And she certainly wouldn't have gone to care for her when Demelza was so ill - she'd have been afraid of infecting GC again, quite apart from that, she wouldn't have been well enough herself at that time.

One of the problems created by the writer, is I believe, they should have introduced John and Jane Gimlett after Jud and Prudie were kicked out.  They played a pivotal part at the end of the book, Demelza, and enabled Demelza herself to blossom.  I wonder why they have been omitted.  If the series extends to all 12 books, they feature right through to the end and ought to have their day!

But I would say that, wouldn't I?

Haha

These thoughts do not reflect in any way the abilities and performances of the actors themselves, all of whom are brilliant.  They can only use the material they are given.

 



__________________


Fan

Status: Offline
Posts: 38
Date: Feb 3 3:22 PM, 2016
Permalink  
 

I have interpreted the many visits Elizabeth pays to Nampara as Debbie Horsfield's way of showing that Elizabeth still wants Ross.  Elizabeth seems incapable of loving any man but she wants Ross. Although that is clear in the books, it would not be clear without some device.

 



__________________


Student

Status: Offline
Posts: 176
Date: Feb 2 7:41 PM, 2016
Permalink  
 

pint-of-mild wrote:

That's interesting, MrsMartin, about the interview with Heida Reed.  I can understand why some of those decisions were made with regards to Elizabeth.  I watched the extras on the new DVD, where Reed speaks of her admiration for Elizabeth, referring to her as a real class act.  She sees her as very collected and says that since playing her, she has often thought 'What would Eliabeth do?' when faced with a situation.  Elizabeth is, a classy lady really, yet cold and somehow passionless.  So why, indeed, would the new audience care for her?  I suppose it does, indeed, strengthen the lover triangle angle! (lol)

Again, we come back to the 'What if...' questions about Ross and Elizabeth.  What if she had married him and not Francis?  That would have been a very different story indeed!


The question is, now that they have made Elizabeth this warmer benevolent character, are they planning to change our perception of her so that she is more in line with the character in the book? If they do, when will they do this? Will it be during Francis' conversation with Dwight, after is failed suicide attempt? I hope they expand that conversation. If they don't change the perception of Elizabeth, event that happen later in the story will take on a different tone to them. What bothered me in the extras on the DVD, was where Tomlinson talks about how Demelza and Elizabeth become friends. Friends? Really? 

Again, we come back to the 'What if...' questions about Ross and Elizabeth.  What if she had married him and not Francis? I think we would get the same story of Francis and Elizabeth, a man who believed he had won the prize of this woman's love, only to discover that she had no love to give, at least not marital love.  Francis was very much like Elizabeth's father and therefore her response to him was very much like her mother's, acceptable disappointment. If you think that Francis was an acceptable disappointment to Elizabeth than can you imagine what an unacceptable disappointment Ross would have been to her?  I think Ross would initially try to soften his emotional  responses to the social injustices he seen around him but eventually he would have a need to right them or at least try to right them and that would cause a rift between Ross and Elizabeth, of principles that they would not be able to overcome. They would drift apart, they would both be unhappy and disillusioned. Elizabeth's perfect husband is George. He doesn't expect love from her, he just wants the honour of having her on his arm. To him, she is his prize possession and by marrying Elizabeth really really gets under Ross' skin, which is an added bonus.

 



-- Edited by MrsMartin on Wednesday 3rd of February 2016 04:18:10 AM

__________________


Student

Status: Offline
Posts: 111
Date: Jan 29 2:19 PM, 2016
Permalink  
 

That's interesting, MrsMartin, about the interview with Heida Reed.  I can understand why some of those decisions were made with regards to Elizabeth.  I watched the extras on the new DVD, where Reed speaks of her admiration for Elizabeth, referring to her as a real class act.  She sees her as very collected and says that since playing her, she has often thought 'What would Eliabeth do?' when faced with a situation.  Elizabeth is, a classy lady really, yet cold and somehow passionless.  So why, indeed, would the new audience care for her?  I suppose it does, indeed, strengthen the lover triangle angle! (lol)

Again, we come back to the 'What if...' questions about Ross and Elizabeth.  What if she had married him and not Francis?  That would have been a very different story indeed!



__________________


Student

Status: Offline
Posts: 176
Date: Jan 22 4:24 PM, 2016
Permalink  
 

According to an interview that I read with Heida Reed (Elizabeth), that it was decided to make Elizabeth a much warmer character as a way to explain Ross' obsession with her. Therefore, her interactions with Ross and Demelza are very different than the books. However, if one looks at her interactions with Francis, she is very much the character in the books, very cold and judgemental. I do understand their reasoning in this respect, for I never did really understand why Ross held a candle for Elizabeth for as long as he did. 

I not sure why they had Uncle Charles give Ross money to move away. Maybe they were trying to make out that Ross was a threat to Francis and Elizabeth's marriage. therefore, amping up the love triangle or unrequited love angle. It seems to me that the direction that this production is taking is that, if Ross had only gone to see Elizabeth when he returned from America, that she would have broken off her engagement to Francis and married Ross. They have made Elizabeth reasons for marry Francis, one of financial pressure and family obligations, that she is being noble by marrying Francis. 



__________________


Student

Status: Offline
Posts: 111
Date: Jan 22 3:34 PM, 2016
Permalink  
 

I agree, I found the whole Charles trying to pay off Ross plot very odd anyway, and, as you say, even odder that Elizabeth goes to stop Ross.  Doesn't Elizabeth only call on him once in the books?  The morning after Ross and Demelza first get together?

I understand that adaptations are just that - adaptations.  Not everything can be exactly the same as in the books, but it does make me wonder why they choose to change some things.

Strange - I'm actually watching it now, and Elizabeth has come to call to see Demelza right after Julia is born.  I feel that they've really tried to make Elizabeth a much nicer and more sympathetic character in it.



-- Edited by pint-of-mild on Friday 22nd of January 2016 03:37:24 PM

__________________


Student

Status: Offline
Posts: 176
Date: Jan 21 11:44 PM, 2016
Permalink  
 

LJones41 wrote:

What has really bothered me the most about the new production, is the amount of times Elizabeth chases after Ross or goes to his home.

 

 

Elizabeth never "chased" after Ross. 


 That is what I mean. In the book Elizabeth never chased after Ross, but in this production, they have her running off to stop him from leaving Cornwall at the end of the first episode. Definitely, not what book Elizabeth would ever do.



__________________


Student

Status: Offline
Posts: 120
Date: Jan 21 11:33 PM, 2016
Permalink  
 

What has really bothered me the most about the new production, is the amount of times Elizabeth chases after Ross or goes to his home.

 

 

Elizabeth never "chased" after Ross. 



__________________


Student

Status: Offline
Posts: 176
Date: Jan 21 8:36 PM, 2016
Permalink  
 

pint-of-mild wrote:

I'm re-reading at the moment and am near the beginning of Demelza.  Personally I think that the Clive Francis characterization from the 70s BBC adaptation is much truer to the Francis in the books.  I've always felt rather sorry for him to be honest.  I feel that he is much more sure of himself and not as inadequate as he is played in the new adaptation.

 

Another thing which has struck me as strange with the new adaptation is the relationship between Demelza and Jud and Prudie.  There's a passage in Ross Poldark which states that Demelza was not in the hours more than three hours before Prudie took her under her wing.  Both of them are portrayed as being much more aggressive towards her than they are in the book.  The friendship between Demelza and Prudie is a strong one, which lasts right the way through the books as she continues to call on them, taking them money after they are dismissed by Ross.


 It is funny you should post this, because I was just thinking the same thing about the Jud, Prudie and Demelza's relationship. I was just reading how Prudie was swearing less because she was trying to set a good example for Demelza and how Demelza's inquisitive mind soon out stripped Prudie's.  Jud and Prudie are the first people that Demelza thinks of going to when she is leaving Ross and as you say their relationship is strong throughout the books. They are very much parent figures for Demelza and I am not sure why they have been portrayed as adversaries or tormentors, it is odd.

What has really bothered me the most about the new production, is the amount of times Elizabeth chases after Ross or goes to his home. I found that the dramatic effect of when Elizabeth and Demelza meet after Demelza's seduction of Ross was lost, because it is not the first time that they meet. 



__________________
1 2  >  Last»  | Page of 2  sorted by
 
Quick Reply

Please log in to post quick replies.