# Day of the Triffids-2009.



## Stoat Boy (Dec 17, 2009)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p005msqc

Looking forward to this. Post Apoc stuff goodness


----------



## Divisive Cotton (Dec 17, 2009)

excellent:  Mon, 28 Dec 2009, 21:00 on BBC One


----------



## TrippyLondoner (Dec 17, 2009)

Looks amazing, whens it gonna be on?

edit: No worries, thanks cotton.


----------



## Belushi (Dec 17, 2009)

Really looking forward to this, love the novel and the early eighties beeb adaptation.


----------



## DexterTCN (Dec 17, 2009)

I read Wyndham's stuff as a teenager - Midwich Cuckoos, Kraken, Triffids.   Big fucking books.

This could be good.


----------



## Chester Copperpot (Dec 17, 2009)

Looks great.

*sets sky plus*


----------



## Kerensky (Dec 17, 2009)

*Triffids*

... yes, really enjoyed the BBC series starring John Duttine.

If I recall, it was re-shown not that long ago (although with my memory,
 that could mean anythg from 18mnths to 1 mnth ago !)

There was a sequal written by Simon Clarke, The Night of the Triffids which
is OK for the first few chapters, and then transcends into utter shite.


----------



## DotCommunist (Dec 17, 2009)

Fucking A.


Solid cast as well. This good be ace.


----------



## Reno (Dec 17, 2009)

I only saw the 80s series for the first time a few years ago and thought it only would play well if looked at with a degree of nostalgia. Production values were minimal, in the entire series there was about two mintues spent on the triffids, it had that typically flat shot on video look of cheap TV series of that time and most of it was people sitting in rooms and bickering.

Looking forward to the remake. I always thought the novel had never been done properly in previous adaoptations.


----------



## maldwyn (Dec 17, 2009)

It'll be interesting to see how they rework this as much of it has already been cannibalized by other films (28 days later for one) and could come across as tired and overdone. Although I'm glad it's the beeb doing it.


----------



## Belushi (Dec 17, 2009)

Reno said:


> I only saw the 80s series for the first time a few years ago and thought it only would play well if looked at with a degree of nostalgia. Production values were minimal, in the entire series there was about two mintues spent on the triffids, it had that typically flat shot on video look of cheap TV series of that time and most of it was people sitting in rooms and bickering.
> 
> Looking forward to the remake. I always thought the novel had never been done properly in previous adaoptations.



I thought the 80's tv version was a fairly good adaptation of the novel, though the production values were low, far superior to the dodgy fifties movie version!


----------



## Mad Badger (Dec 17, 2009)

Day Of The Triffids is my favourite book ever. 

I liked the 80s adaptation- it was faithful to the book, which was written in the 50s and was so far ahead of it's time, commenting on things such as satellites being used for chemical warfare etc.

I wonder how many people will watch the first episode and say it's just a blatant rip off of 28 Days Later


----------



## vogonity (Dec 17, 2009)

Loved the book: very scary.

Like the clip; it'll be interesting to see how this adaptation's done.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Dec 17, 2009)

If they shove a happy ending on it people are going to _die_


----------



## bridgy45 (Dec 17, 2009)

Hopefully it wont be too `hollywoody`.The original film with howard keel was really good.


----------



## Reno (Dec 17, 2009)

bridgy45 said:


> Hopefully it wont be too `hollywoody`.The original film with howard keel was really good.



Isn't that a bit of a contradiction. The 60s Howard Keel movie barely resembled the book and was very `hollywoody`, reducing the premise to a dumb monster movie.


----------



## discokermit (Dec 17, 2009)

i've heard it's gonna be shit.


----------



## bridgy45 (Dec 17, 2009)

Reno said:


> Isn't that a bit of a contradiction. The 60s Howard Keel movie barely resembled the book and was very `hollywoody`, reducing the premise to a dumb monster movie.



Yes i see what you mean  what i meant was hopefully it wont be full of `pretty` faces and rock music.


----------



## 8den (Dec 19, 2009)

*Is this the Awesome Picture Ever?*







Fuck. And. Yes.


----------



## Voley (Dec 19, 2009)

Good cast. I'll give this a go, I reckon. The first one scared the hell out of me when I was a kid.


----------



## PursuedByBears (Dec 19, 2009)

I love the book.  The Death of Grass is even better!


----------



## ginger_syn (Dec 19, 2009)

I will have to re-read the book again, so i can shout at the telly when they have changed things, which they are bound to,but i intend to enjoy it anyway.


----------



## Stoat Boy (Dec 19, 2009)

PursuedByBears said:


> I love the book.  The Death of Grass is even better!



They did a radio dramatisation of that on radio 4 recently. Very good it was to.

Personally I prefered 'A wrinkle in the skin' but its a genre that I never tire of.


----------



## mentalchik (Dec 19, 2009)

NVP said:


> Good cast. I'll give this a go, I reckon. The first one scared the hell out of me when I was a kid.



The film version of it scared the living shit out of me as a kid..........had nightmares for ages !


----------



## Balbi (Dec 19, 2009)

8den said:


> Fuck. And. Yes.



 Elected majority? I've got a faaaaahking shotgun


----------



## Infidel Castro (Dec 19, 2009)

The news that Day of the Triffids is going to be on telly has cut through my hangover haze and anger at being in work at 7am, and caused me to smile like a kid.  Can't wait for this!


----------



## killer b (Dec 19, 2009)

has anyone ever done the chrysalids? wyndham was amazing, although i've a sneaking suspicion he may be responsible for me writing off my early teenage years on reading dreadful sci-fi...


----------



## existentialist (Dec 19, 2009)

Eagerly waiting this.

The danger with dramatising Wyndham though is that his writing paints brilliant pictures in the mind, and I'm not convinced anyone else's vision can live up to our own imaginations.

I'm still going to watch it, though


----------



## DotCommunist (Dec 19, 2009)

There's a goodn version of Midwhich Cuckoos called 'Village of the Damned' with christopher wassisname in it. Superman. Broke his back.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Dec 19, 2009)

DotCommunist said:


> There's a goodn version of Midwhich Cuckoos called 'Village of the Damned' with christopher wassisname in it. Superman. Broke his back.



What's the opposite of Christopher Reeve?



Christopher Walken


----------



## Mad Badger (Dec 21, 2009)

SpookyFrank said:


> What's the opposite of Christopher Reeve?
> 
> 
> 
> Christopher Walken



Oh dear. Like it


----------



## Reno (Dec 21, 2009)

DotCommunist said:


> There's a goodn version of Midwhich Cuckoos called 'Village of the Damned' with christopher wassisname in it. Superman. Broke his back.



That's the godawful remake of the much better 60s film.


----------



## DotCommunist (Dec 21, 2009)

Reno said:


> That's the godawful remake of the much better 60s film.



The 60's offering was gash, in all honesty. Like the original of The Thing, it is that rare beast: the re-make does better


----------



## Voley (Dec 21, 2009)

I'm trying to remember which version scared me as a kid. Possibly the film that mentalchik mentions. I seem to remember watching it at home on the box, though. I recall cowering behind a sofa.


----------



## Reno (Dec 21, 2009)

DotCommunist said:


> The 60's offering was gash, in all honesty. Like the original of The Thing, it is that rare beast: the re-make does better



Total taste failure ! The original is much more atmospheric, better cast and acted, better shot and it does without all the unmotivated gore that got added for no good reason in the remake. The children's ill-fitting fright wigs in the remake look ridiculous (they dyed the kids hair in the orignal). The VOTD remake was a new low for the once promising John Carpenter's career.

The remake of The Thing actually added something by going back to the original short story and it gave us the shape shifting monster they couldn't do in the 50s. The Village of the Damned remake doesn't go back of the novel or add anything of interest, it's just a crass carbon copy of the 60s film.


----------



## Kaka Tim (Dec 21, 2009)

"the Brick wall/the brick wall"

The 60s version scared the pants of me when I was a nipper.


----------



## DotCommunist (Dec 28, 2009)

Bump


On in an hour. Glee! Bring on the man eating plants


----------



## elevendayempire (Dec 28, 2009)

Wish they'd do a Triffids adaptation that's _actually set in the fucking 50s_ like the book.


----------



## madzone (Dec 28, 2009)

I'm recording this which means I have to watch Englishman in New York. What is the point of Sky+ recording two things at once if you have to fucking watch one of them


----------



## paolo (Dec 28, 2009)

elevendayempire said:


> Wish they'd do a Triffids adaptation that's _actually set in the fucking 50s_ like the book.



Naaah.

The whole premise of post-apocalyptic drama is that it is the "end of the world _as we know it_".

"How the world could have ended at some previous point in history but clearly didn't" isn't really quite the same thing, emotionally.


----------



## Belushi (Dec 28, 2009)

I've hardly watched any TV in months but I'm really looking forward to this


----------



## TrippyLondoner (Dec 28, 2009)

Gonna watch this.


----------



## Weller (Dec 28, 2009)

not impressed at all , I feel let down , was really looking forward to this , bored of it now


----------



## TrippyLondoner (Dec 28, 2009)

Weller said:


> not impressed at all , I feel let down , was really looking forward to this , bored of it now



Same, reason i switched back to the darts, glad i fucking did to.


----------



## colacubes (Dec 28, 2009)

Lame


----------



## themonkeyman (Dec 28, 2009)

proper lame


----------



## mrsfran (Dec 28, 2009)

The woman playing Jo Wiley's not very convincing.


----------



## pigtails (Dec 28, 2009)

poo


----------



## mrsfran (Dec 28, 2009)

They never mention the people who had already been blind for life in these things. They'd be quids in.


----------



## colacubes (Dec 28, 2009)

missfran said:


> The woman playing Jo Wiley's not very convincing.


----------



## Maurice Picarda (Dec 28, 2009)

Awful. Travesty. Not even a cosy catastrophe.


----------



## TheHoodedClaw (Dec 28, 2009)

Daylight in London and Sydney at the same time? Is that possible at any time of year?


----------



## Maurice Picarda (Dec 28, 2009)

wiki said:
			
		

> The script is by Patrick Harbinson, who has written episodes of the British dramas Soldier Soldier and Heartbeat, and the American series ER and Law & Order.



Right.


----------



## pigtails (Dec 28, 2009)

The triffids remind me of...


----------



## fen_boy (Dec 28, 2009)

I think it's really good.


----------



## themonkeyman (Dec 28, 2009)

Joely seems to be a pawn in the Izaard/plant fight.  Shame on her.


----------



## London_Calling (Dec 28, 2009)

28 days later meets Gardners World, with Eddie Fucking Izzard truly believing he's so good he can ham it up.

Can anyone in this country write a drama?


----------



## themonkeyman (Dec 28, 2009)

Moral of this story

Izzard stick to comedy

Plants stick to Chelsea flower show


----------



## badlands (Dec 28, 2009)

London_Calling said:


> Can anyone in this country write a drama?



Do you really need to ask



It is woeful


----------



## fen_boy (Dec 28, 2009)

I thought Izzard was quite a good scheming baddy.


----------



## TrippyLondoner (Dec 28, 2009)

themonkeyman said:


> Moral of this story
> 
> Izzard stick to comedy
> 
> Plants stick to Chelsea flower show


----------



## mentalchik (Dec 28, 2009)

Well i thought it was not bad at all............you're all just a bunch of jaded misery-guts !


----------



## gnoriac (Dec 28, 2009)

I really liked it.


----------



## elevendayempire (Dec 28, 2009)

That was absolute pish. I gave up halfway through. Was really looking forward to it, too. Ah well, there's always Turn of the Screw.


----------



## Stoat Boy (Dec 28, 2009)

Firstly there are holes in it that you can drive a bus through....

but its also not bad. Not bad at all. As a post apoc saddo I think they got the intial chaos done rather well and whilst the script was a tad a cheesy at times let us not forget that this is a drama about 99%+ of the worlds population being blinded by a solar flare and then being eaten by flesh eating plants that can walk. 

Enjoyed it very much and am looking forward to the second part. And I thought Eddie Izzard was rather good although how he survived in the first place, well that really is taking dramatic licence a tad to far.


----------



## mentalchik (Dec 28, 2009)

What the hell were you all expecting ?


----------



## gnoriac (Dec 28, 2009)

fen_boy said:


> I thought Izzard was quite a good scheming baddy.



He does baddy far better than that John Simms bloke currently in Dr Who.


----------



## DotCommunist (Dec 28, 2009)

I approved, even though they have taken liberties with the text and Izzard is not the most convincing baddie. It's still got the thumbs up here


----------



## DotCommunist (Dec 28, 2009)

missfran said:


> They never mention the people who had already been blind for life in these things. They'd be quids in.



They do in the book. Masen meets a blind man with a stick who moans about clumsy folks


----------



## Belushi (Dec 28, 2009)

mentalchik said:


> What the hell were you all expecting ?



A decent adaptation, like the BBC managed in the early Eighties.

Disappointed


----------



## fen_boy (Dec 28, 2009)

DotCommunist said:


> I approved, even though they have taken liberties with the text and Izzard is not the most convincing baddie. It's still got the thumbs up here



That's the official U75 sci-fi nerd seal of approval right there.


----------



## nightowl (Dec 28, 2009)

Pretty crap. Obviously weren't confident about the triffids as they only seemed to appear in the dark. 80s BBC version was much better


----------



## TheHoodedClaw (Dec 28, 2009)

Pish, but enjoyable pish. I'll watch part two.


----------



## fen_boy (Dec 28, 2009)

Wasn't the 80s version just a load of people sat in a single room arguing though?


----------



## Stoat Boy (Dec 28, 2009)

DotCommunist said:


> They do in the book. Masen meets a blind man with a stick who moans about clumsy folks



Yep. And I was surprised at them not even mentioning it in passing but perhaps in the second part.

And I thought the the character to blame for letting the Triffids go would have been a very active poster on here. A TUW if ever I saw one.


----------



## Belushi (Dec 28, 2009)

fen_boy said:


> Wasn't the 80s version just a load of people sat in a single room arguing though?



No, and the triffids were just as convincing.


----------



## mentalchik (Dec 28, 2009)

Belushi said:


> A decent adaptation, like the BBC managed in the early Eighties.
> 
> Disappointed



was that the one with John Duttine ?

I spose though that they are trying to get it all in in just 2 episodes rather than a series............


still think it was ok and my eldest (who doesn't know it at all)thought it was ok for the BBC.............


----------



## Stoat Boy (Dec 28, 2009)

nightowl said:


> Pretty crap. Obviously weren't confident about the triffids as they only seemed to appear in the dark. 80s BBC version was much better



Rubbish.

I love the 1981 series but the Triffids in that were a major let down and make it hard to take it seriously. I thought the BBC deserved top marks for how they handled them this time around.


----------



## gnoriac (Dec 28, 2009)

Crappiest bit as far as I'm concerned is Dougray Scott, same square-jawed hero expression the whole way through, I don't think his tone of voice changed once in 2 hours.


----------



## Reno (Dec 28, 2009)

fen_boy said:


> Wasn't the 80s version just a load of people sat in a single room arguing though?



Yup, it was unbelievably boring.


----------



## fen_boy (Dec 28, 2009)

Belushi said:


> No, and the triffids were just as convincing.



Well that's my memory of it, I haven't seen it since the 80s though.


----------



## nightowl (Dec 28, 2009)

fen_boy said:


> Wasn't the 80s version just a load of people sat in a single room arguing though?


----------



## cesare (Dec 28, 2009)

I enjoyed that. Didn't think Eddie Izzard did too badly either.


----------



## Belushi (Dec 28, 2009)

fen_boy said:


> Well that's my memory of it, I haven't seen it since the 80s though.



BBC4 showed it again a couple of years back, stands sup very well despite the beeb production values.


----------



## paolo (Dec 28, 2009)

DotCommunist said:


> I approved, even though they have taken liberties with the text and Izzard is not the most convincing baddie. It's still got the thumbs up here



Same here.

Started to pick up the pace towards the end, with the twists and turns of allegiances. Hopefully the next one will keep it up.

Generally liked.

(Though my number one post-apoca is still the Quatermass Conclusion. That had some proper bleak bits, and John Mills - well, it's John fucking Mills. )


----------



## Reno (Dec 28, 2009)

Belushi said:


> BBC4 showed it again a couple of years back, stands sup very well despite the beeb production values.



I thought it was close to unwatchable when I saw it on BBC4. The Triffids barely featured in it and otherwise it considted of a few rather bad actors bickering. Deserted London was represented by one empty street and everything looked flat and overlit, the way cheap UK dramas did then.


----------



## Lord Camomile (Dec 28, 2009)

London_Calling said:


> Can anyone in this country write a drama?





badlands said:


> Do you really need to ask
> 
> 
> 
> It is woeful


 It still confuses me that so much money and resources can be spent on these things and yet still the writing is so awful. Even if you're trying to make it 'accessible' and appeal to the lowest common denominator you don't have to have such appalling writing.

Two moments which highlighted this:

Jo says "I can't get a signal" [which is already pretty blatant] followed by a shot of her phone with a big "no signal" message filling the screen. Whose phone does that?! And it's hardly as if the scenario is something that would be alien to the majority of viewers, such as computer hacking or whatever.

Second: Bill [Dougray Scott] finds his eaten friend - "oh no, not Jill" :yawn: 

Poorly written pap.

And yet I still watched all of it


----------



## yardbird (Dec 28, 2009)

bridgy45 said:


> Hopefully it wont be too `hollywoody`.The original film with howard keel was really good.



WHAT???

The production company ran out of cash before it was completed. You will notice that the Triffids are different in different scenes.
As usual with movies it was not shot in sequence.
It was not the "original" film - it was the only one. 
Complete crap.

I think the bbc has done it SIX times.
Three times on the wireless  radio (one was a Book at Bedtime!)
This is the third time on TV.
I read the book first time when I was about ten - over fifty years ago!
I got into this one, but let's see how part two is.


----------



## editor (Dec 28, 2009)

That was dreadful, dreadful shite. The Eddie Izzard character was just plain ridiculous.


----------



## miss minnie (Dec 28, 2009)

Stoat Boy said:


> this is a drama about 99%+ of the worlds population being blinded by a solar flare ...


Even those parts of the world where it was night at the time. 

Neither sharp enough nor cheesy enough to engage with, doubt I'll be too distraught if I miss part 2.


----------



## strung out (Dec 28, 2009)

enjoyable enough


----------



## Kaka Tim (Dec 28, 2009)

really quite shit and a massive dissapiontment.  

Appalingly badly written and treated the audience like their imbeciles. 
Not scary. 
As is the norm - noboady looked like real people - they mostly looked like they driect from the 'young and blandly good looking actors agency'
Eddie Izzard - annoyingly hammy performance and a ridiculous character. 
Managed to lose all the tension and slow dawning horror that you get from the book - 28 days later did it better. 

The triffids were quite good. 

Agree that the ITV Quatermass serires was much better in terms of protrayal of future distopias/social breakdown.


----------



## killer b (Dec 28, 2009)

gracious. i thought it was smashing.


----------



## Maurice Picarda (Dec 28, 2009)

killer b said:


> gracious. i thought it was smashing.


 


strung_out said:


> enjoyable enough


 


paolo999 said:


> Generally liked


 


cesare said:


> I enjoyed that. Didn't think Eddie Izzard did too badly either.


 


fen_boy said:


> I think it's really good.


 


gnoriac said:


> I really liked it.


 
You people, who didn't find that risible: fans of the Wyndham book?


----------



## cesare (Dec 28, 2009)

Maurice Picarda said:


> You people, who didn't find that risible: fans of the Wyndham book?



Years since I read it. Can't say I'd describe myself as a particular fan of it. Twas OK.


----------



## fen_boy (Dec 28, 2009)

Maurice Picarda said:


> You people, who didn't find that risible: fans of the Wyndham book?



Not read it.


----------



## fen_boy (Dec 28, 2009)

Maurice Picarda said:


> You people, who didn't find that risible: fans of the Wyndham book?



You missed DotCommunist off your list btw.


----------



## Maurice Picarda (Dec 28, 2009)

fen_boy said:


> You missed DotCommunist off your list btw.


 
I knew the answer already.


----------



## killer b (Dec 28, 2009)

Maurice Picarda said:


> You people, who didn't find that risible: fans of the Wyndham book?


yeah, i love the book. i've never expected adaptations to stick slavishly to the original plot though. that would be ridiculous.


----------



## paolo (Dec 28, 2009)

Maurice Picarda said:


> You people, who didn't find that risible: fans of the Wyndham book?



So long ago I can't remember it. I was more comparing to other post-apocalyptic stuff.

(oh and yes, I'd agree with the opinion above about 28 Days being better. It was a bit grittier.)

Maybe in hindsight I'll give this a "passable".


----------



## Lakina (Dec 28, 2009)

I was disappointed that the Triffids didn't speak more.  I thought it would be helpful to Understand their perspective.


----------



## Lord Camomile (Dec 28, 2009)

I think Jo the DJ will interview them for Desert Island Discs in the next episode.


----------



## DotCommunist (Dec 28, 2009)

cesare said:


> Years since I read it. Can't say I'd describe myself as a particular fan of it. Twas OK.



The violin player in the first half hour who does a tune as the world crumbles? If that isn't a direct nod to the girl on the piano doing 'we'll go no more a-roving' (in the book) I'll eat my foot cheese.


----------



## cesare (Dec 29, 2009)

DotCommunist said:


> The violin player in the first half hour who does a tune as the world crumbles? If that isn't a direct nod to the girl on the piano doing 'we'll go no more a-roving' (in the book) I'll eat my foot cheese.



Was the girl on the piano in the book then? See, ages since I read it.

Ooops - did you just add (in the book) ?


----------



## Iguana (Dec 29, 2009)

Lord Camomile said:


> Second: Bill [Dougray Scott] finds his eaten friend - "oh no, not Jill" :yawn:



That bit was passable.  It was the follow up "She died fighting.  She was blind but she died fighting them" that was really piss poor.  You musn't have heard it over your yawn.


----------



## Lord Camomile (Dec 29, 2009)

Iguana said:


> That bit was passable.  It was the follow up "She died fighting.  She was blind but she died fighting them" that was really piss poor.  You musn't have heard it over your yawn.


 he he, I didn't mention that bit as I thought the post was long enough already


----------



## Endeavour (Dec 29, 2009)




----------



## scifisam (Dec 29, 2009)

I think it's pretty good. And yes, I did like the original book too. 

The casting's amazing - with even more top names next episode. 

Odd thing, though: where are all the kids? We saw one child briefly, and that's that. There would have been loads of kids who were too young to look at the sky, so survived with their sight. Tons of ill people, too. In short, there'd be a lot more sighted people than the TV show and the book both make out. 

I love the 'help people even if you have to be handcuffed' part of the storyline.


----------



## ginger_syn (Dec 29, 2009)

It was better than i expected,but it could have been better than it was.


----------



## London_Calling (Dec 29, 2009)

Wasn't the only child we saw sighted "Come this way, Daddy"?

Fwiw, I thought the path to resolution seemed open once the Scots fella got on his computer and played his triffid conversations - we'd already had the emergency broadcast. 

I'm with the triffids; I'd also be a bit angry about being hung up in a shed for three years and tapped, before then being killed off.


----------



## Lakina (Dec 29, 2009)

Triffid no 1: "I'm hungry"

triffid no 2: "there are some people over there"

triffid no 1: "yummy"


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Dec 29, 2009)

Anyone able to explain the amazing speed these plants manage given the distance covered within the shown timeframe?


----------



## London_Calling (Dec 29, 2009)

Jesus, some of you people find the funniest things to pick up on. It's like it would all make sense but for  this one thing I noticed that ruined it for me; if you can't suspend belief, what are you doing watching si-fi?


----------



## Stoat Boy (Dec 29, 2009)

London_Calling said:


> Jesus, some of you people find the funniest things to pick up on. It's like it would all make sense but for  this one thing I noticed that ruined it for me; if you can't suspend belief, what are you doing watching si-fi?



You need to remember that this is Urban.

It was one of them that let the things out in the first place and most of them are cheering on the Triffids anyway due to them thinking of humanity as a virus .


----------



## souljacker (Dec 29, 2009)

I can't suspend my belief that Joely Richardson's only talent is advanced nepotism. She is a fucking shit actor.


----------



## AnnaKarpik (Dec 29, 2009)

missfran said:


> They never mention the people who had already been blind for life in these things. They'd be quids in.





DotCommunist said:


> They do in the book. Masen meets a blind man with a stick who moans about clumsy folks



The 'normal' blind were mentioned last night, described as the highly-skilled blind. At least that's what I took it to mean; the people who can manage perfectly well without sight as opposed to the helpless masses who can't feed themselves.

I loved Wyndham's books as a kid which is why I'll be watching part two, but I have to confess I was knitting at the same time rather than hiding behind the sofa gripped with fear.


----------



## ovaltina (Dec 29, 2009)

I fell asleep. Can't be bothered to find it on iplayer, it didn't grab me.



fen_boy said:


> Well that's my memory of it, I haven't seen it since the 80s though.



It's on Youtube


----------



## Santino (Dec 29, 2009)

There seemed to be a big chunk of plot missing between 'there's a small band of survivors hiding in The Gherkin' to 'we're running London from 10 Downing Street'.


----------



## London_Calling (Dec 29, 2009)

I thought The Clueless were one group (the Gherkin people/ The Village) and the Really Baddies the other (the Izzard/Downing St/The Castle), and we're cheering for the Jock and the random Yank who have to save the princess from the castle and lead the clueless to victory?


----------



## Lakina (Dec 29, 2009)

But we are supposed to cheer for the triffids, right?


----------



## ATOMIC SUPLEX (Dec 29, 2009)

Good start but then booooorrrrriiiinnnnggg. The triffids aren't scary. I remember when they were massive daffodils and had scary tongues and clicky bits. These look like small pot plants with a flimsy petal head.


----------



## elevendayempire (Dec 29, 2009)

Santino said:


> There seemed to be a big chunk of plot missing between 'there's a small band of survivors hiding in The Gherkin' to 'we're running London from 10 Downing Street'.


I gave up halfway through, but am I right in assuming that the whole thing's set in London? Fuck that. Half the fun of the novel was watching the characters head out into the Home Counties in sensible knitwear and set up a farm...


----------



## Divisive Cotton (Dec 29, 2009)

I thought it was alright - b movie stuff really but I can't imagine a film about plants that move around and eat people to be anything else


----------



## 8den (Dec 29, 2009)

elevendayempire said:


> I gave up halfway through, but am I right in assuming that the whole thing's set in London? Fuck that. Half the fun of the novel was watching the characters head out into the Home Counties in sensible knitwear and set up a farm...



You've giving it too much nostalgia credit. I watched the original recently and its a bit rubbish, kind of like the original survivors, which has bloated scenes about crop rotation and pig farming it's frankly a post apocalyptic version of the Archers. 

Hmmm A Post Apocalyptic Version of the Archers, I think I've found Urban's ideal TV series.


----------



## existentialist (Dec 29, 2009)

Maurice Picarda said:


> You people, who didn't find that risible: fans of the Wyndham book?


I'm a huge fan of the book - I first read it in my very early teens, and I think I incorporated the whole "how to survive in the apocalypse" thing into my teenaged (and later) worldview pretty extensively 

But I have been disappointed by enough film/TV adaptations of books before to know that they rarely deliver - especially when the book is as well written as something like this one. So, as with "Jurassic Park", where the film is a pale shadow of the book, I just sat back to enjoy the effects and watch the explosions, rather than expecting anything significant to appear.

On that basis, I thought it was excellent. On the other side of it, I can agree with pretty much every criticism that's been made here (the "No Signal" thing - when *will* they learn that making data devices display inch-high letters is always risible?), and I cannot understand why it is necessary to make changes to the original story that seem to have no good reason for them to have been made - WTF did Torrance have to survive a plane crash, for example?

I thought Izzard made a good baddie, though, albeit a little hammy - perhaps I'm just pleased to see that there is a niche for smirksome and slightly tubby middle-aged blokes


----------



## QueenOfGoths (Dec 29, 2009)

ATOMIC SUPLEX said:


> Good start but then booooorrrrriiiinnnnggg. The triffids aren't scary. I remember when they were massive daffodils and had scary tongues and clicky bits. These look like small pot plants with a flimsy petal head.



Felt much the same - started well and was quite scary then was rather dull then got better towards the end when there was a bit more triffid action.

Always good to see London in a state of chaos though, it sates my disaster movie appetite


----------



## ATOMIC SUPLEX (Dec 29, 2009)

8den said:


> You've giving it too much nostalgia credit. I watched the original recently .



You watched the book? Or do you mean the 60s film?


----------



## ATOMIC SUPLEX (Dec 29, 2009)

I'm not sure the whole thing works in this communication age.


----------



## Voley (Dec 29, 2009)

Taped this but don't think I'll bother with it now I've read this thread. Ta. You've saved me half an hour or so.


----------



## QueenOfGoths (Dec 29, 2009)

NVP said:


> Taped this but don't think I'll bother with it now I've read this thread. Ta. You've saved me half an hour or so.



Oh I wouldn't rule it out yet - it would make good New Year's Day afternoon, feeling hungover and don't want to leave the sofa watching fodder


----------



## Voley (Dec 29, 2009)

QueenOfGoths said:


> Oh I wouldn't rule it out yet - it would make good New Year's Day afternoon, feeling hungover and don't want to leave the sofa watching fodder



Oh, Ok. I taped all of Wallace and Gromit over Xmas for this purpose, mind.


----------



## QueenOfGoths (Dec 29, 2009)

NVP said:


> Oh, Ok. I taped all of Wallace and Gromit over Xmas for this purpose, mind.



It's a long weekend, I reckon you could fit in W&G and triffids


----------



## Mad Badger (Dec 29, 2009)

The book is one of my all time favourites, and with that in mind, approached this with caution.

I have to agree with nearly all of the comments here, both ways, but overall I think it's ok.

Despite being adapted and updated, and given a fair bit of cheese, it has remained pretty faithful to the book. It's this fact, that the events and characters have generally not been totally butchered that makes it acceptable for me. For example, most of the twists and turns so far are adaptations of those in the book, not completely new ones dreamed up by the script writers. There is a feeling though that they have tried to cram too much in, and the fast pace betrays the book. This is probably unavoidable though for a tv adaptation.

The triffids are disappointing though, and do look like trees in the depth of winter. I half expected to see a bird's nest in some of the branches.

To the comment about the 80s series hardly featuring them- the triffids are incidental to the book, which was primarily a comment on human nature and social morals in a post apocalyptic world, Their prescence was about humans no longer being the dominant species rather than being the perpetrators of a gorefest.


----------



## madzone (Dec 29, 2009)

Is it scary? Would a hypersensitive 11yr old be ok watching it?


----------



## Stigmata (Dec 29, 2009)

madzone said:


> Is it scary? Would a hypersensitive 11yr old be ok watching it?



Well it gave me the willies and i'm a hypersensitive 24yr old


----------



## Iguana (Dec 29, 2009)

Why does absolutely everyone assume they will be blind forever?  Humans are very good at denial.  While some people would panic and go crazy, a lot, if not most, people would assume it's temporary blindness and go home and wait for it to pass.  Especially once they realise some people can see.

Imo, the stupidest part is when Masen gets out of bed after everyone is blinded.  A man grabs him and asks if he is a doctor, to which he replies, 'yes.'  Then when asked to examine his eyes he says he is not that type of doctor.  What sort of person with who is in a hospital where some sort of disaster is happening would assume someone desperately asking if they were a doctor was asking about their education level and not for medical assistance?


----------



## QueenOfGoths (Dec 29, 2009)

Iguana said:


> *Why does absolutely everyone assume they will be blind forever?  Humans are very good at denial.  While some people would panic and go crazy, a lot, if not most, people would assume it's temporary blindness and go home and wait for it to pass.  Especially once they realise some people can see.*
> 
> Imo, the stupidest part is when Masen gets out of bed after everyone is blinded.  A man grabs him and asks if he is a doctor, to which he replies, 'yes.'  Then when asked to examine his eyes he says he is not that type of doctor.  What sort of person with who is in a hospital where some sort of disaster is happening would assume someone desperately asking if they were a doctor was asking about their education level and not for medical assistance?



I am not sure that they are assuming they will be blind forever - what we saw were people's first reactions. I think if I were suddenly blinded I would spend quite a bit of time panicking, especially if everyone else around me had been suddenly blinded too, before I could settle down, if indeed I could, into a "let's wait and see" phase.

Also if I were blinded as in the show I would have a hell of a time trying to get home!


----------



## DotCommunist (Dec 29, 2009)

Mad Badger said:


> The book is one of my all time favourites, and with that in mind, approached this with caution.
> 
> I have to agree with nearly all of the comments here, both ways, but overall I think it's ok.
> 
> ...



not sure why Coker is now a yank General rather than a subversive rabble rouser


----------



## madzone (Dec 29, 2009)

Stigmata said:


> Well it gave me the willies and i'm a hypersensitive 24yr old


 Ok, thanks  I'll watch it when he's back at school then


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 29, 2009)

DotCommunist said:


> not sure why Coker is now a yank General rather than a subversive rabble rouser



He's a major, and he's a Yank because one of the Yank TV channels part-funded the series.


----------



## DotCommunist (Dec 29, 2009)

I liked him better as wyndhams heavy handed sneer at bolshy sorts


----------



## QueenOfGoths (Dec 29, 2009)

ViolentPanda said:


> He's a major, and he's a Yank because one of the Yank TV channels part-funded the series.



That is what I assumed - also I think I need new glasses as I kept getting him and the other young bloke (the one who was driving the truck at the end of the episode) mixed up 

Maybe it is my age -all younger people are starting to look the same


----------



## 8den (Dec 29, 2009)

ATOMIC SUPLEX said:


> You watched the book? Or do you mean the 60s film?



Sorry the original tv series, that most people remember. 

Pedant.


----------



## coley (Dec 29, 2009)

QueenOfGoths said:


> Felt much the same - started well and was quite scary then was rather dull then got better towards the end when there was a bit more triffid action.
> 
> Always good to see London in a state of chaos though, it sates my disaster movie appetite


Isn't it normally like that?


----------



## Iguana (Dec 29, 2009)

ViolentPanda said:


> He's a major, and he's a Yank because one of the Yank TV channels part-funded the series.



Priestley's a Canuck though.  

Does anyone else hear them say Major Cocoa every time they address him?


----------



## QueenOfGoths (Dec 29, 2009)

coley said:


> Isn't it normally like that?



Only when it snows


----------



## Lord Camomile (Dec 29, 2009)

Iguana said:


> Priestley's a Canuck though.
> 
> Does anyone else hear them say Major Cocoa every time they address him?


 Yes


----------



## coley (Dec 29, 2009)

Iguana said:


> Priestley's a Canuck though.
> 
> Does anyone else hear them say Major Cocoa every time they address him?


Aye, nice to know it isn't my hearing


----------



## QueenOfGoths (Dec 29, 2009)

It also re-ignited my "Eddie Izzard Hot or Not?" debate ...I think hot, I _think_


----------



## han (Dec 29, 2009)

NVP said:


> Taped this but don't think I'll bother with it now I've read this thread. Ta. You've saved me half an hour or so.



Me too - if everyone thinks it's crap then I think I'll just delete it off me box.


----------



## han (Dec 29, 2009)

Actually no, I'll give it a little go.

It's true - you do have to be able to suspend disbelief for things like this - plants that eat  humans - otherwise what's the point in SF at all?


----------



## Voley (Dec 29, 2009)

han said:


> what's the point in SF at all?



Don't say that! DotCommunist will cease to exist!


----------



## QueenOfGoths (Dec 29, 2009)

NVP said:


> Don't say that! DotCommunist will cease to exist!



We will all have to chant "I _do_ believe in sci-fi, I do!" to keep him alive


----------



## Lord Camomile (Dec 29, 2009)

han said:


> Actually no, I'll give it a little go.
> 
> It's true - you do have to be able to suspend disbelief for things like this - plants that eat  humans - otherwise what's the point in SF at all?


 There's suspension of belief, and there's shit writing. While I haven't read the book it seems to have been received pretty well, whereas the (current) TV series not so, so it's not so much the content as the delivery, I would say.


----------



## han (Dec 29, 2009)




----------



## scifisam (Dec 29, 2009)

Iguana said:


> Does anyone else hear them say Major Cocoa every time they address him?



Yes. In fact, it was so clearly Coco that I think the scripts had an error in them, or that the cast were taking the piss. His first name will turn out to be Aisha.


----------



## han (Dec 29, 2009)

Lord Camomile said:


> There's suspension of belief, and there's shit writing. While I haven't read the book it seems to have been received pretty well, whereas the (current) TV series not so, so it's not so much the content as the delivery, I would say.



Right. I guess it depends on how spot-on you take reviews to be as well. Personally I find them generally pretty accurate on the whole...


----------



## Lord Camomile (Dec 29, 2009)

I suppose if you go in expecting the poor writing then you can perhaps enjoy other aspects of it. Like I said, despite thinking it was quite horrible I still watched it all, although I did suggest we switch over a couple of times, to a response of general apathy from all.


----------



## scifisam (Dec 29, 2009)

Lord Camomile said:


> There's suspension of belief, and there's shit writing. While I haven't read the book it seems to have been received pretty well, whereas the (current) TV series not so, so it's not so much the content as the delivery, I would say.



The first episode of the current series only went out yesterday. Give it a chance!


----------



## Lord Camomile (Dec 29, 2009)

There's only two episodes, I've seen half their output!


----------



## DotCommunist (Dec 29, 2009)

Annoyingly enough the schedule conflicted with a promising John Hurt thing on the other side  

Still, triffids win. Sorry Hurt.


----------



## Santino (Dec 29, 2009)

DotCommunist said:


> Annoyingly enough the schedule conflicted with a promising John Hurt thing on the other side
> 
> Still, triffids win. Sorry Hurt.



You're 3 posts away from the depressing achievement of your 50,000th post!


----------



## Reno (Dec 29, 2009)

DotCommunist said:


> Annoyingly enough the schedule conflicted with a promising John Hurt thing on the other side
> 
> Still, triffids win. Sorry Hurt.



You didn't didn't miss much, it was a real let down considering it was a sequel to one of the greatest TV movies ever made.


----------



## ATOMIC SUPLEX (Dec 29, 2009)

8den said:


> Pedant.



Tee hee hee.


----------



## madzone (Dec 29, 2009)

DotCommunist said:


> Annoyingly enough the schedule conflicted with a promising John Hurt thing on the other side
> 
> Still, triffids win. Sorry Hurt.


 It was good


----------



## felixthecat (Dec 29, 2009)

I liked the way it was updated,  but otherwise it was a bit cack. I expected more cos its a cracking story ripe for a remake.

As for Eddie Izzard (who I normally love), I think he's got it in him to develop into really good baddie. However in this, he hasn't quite managed it. Sorry Eddie


----------



## The Boy (Dec 29, 2009)

Ok, so Eddie Izzard isn't the best, but why is everyone turning a blind eye to the atrocious skills of Dougray Scott?  At times amateurish.


----------



## Iguana (Dec 29, 2009)

I've just thought of a major positive about this.  It was several million times better than the shitty Survivors series they made last year.


----------



## DotCommunist (Dec 29, 2009)

Iguana said:


> I've just thought of a major positive about this.  It was several million times better than the shitty Survivors series they made last year.



Bollocks, Survivors was great.


----------



## Iguana (Dec 29, 2009)

DotCommunist said:


> Bollocks, Survivors was great.



It was gawdawful cack.  It's only redeeming feature was that it killed off Martha Jones in the first episode.  None of the characters who survived were even remotely smart enough to continue on the human race.  Everything they did was moronic, they would have been better off killing themselves and letting our limited gene pool carry on without them.


----------



## upsidedownwalrus (Dec 29, 2009)

I loved Survivors too.

Triffids was shit though  Disappointing


----------



## DotCommunist (Dec 29, 2009)

Iguana said:


> It was gawdawful cack.  It's only redeeming feature was that it killed off Martha Jones in the first episode.  None of the characters who survived were even remotely smart enough to continue on the human race.  Everything they did was moronic, they would have been better off killing themselves and letting our limited gene pool carry on without them.



When the apocalypse comes it isn't going to spare the geeks and paranoids who have read and thought about this eventuality. Hence it was realistic to me. Except for psycho bloke and patterson joseph, they were all suck in a sort of culture shock as the world they knew had vanished.


----------



## Stigmata (Dec 29, 2009)

I like how it's almost a rule that everytime the apocalypse hits, one proper nutter always survives. That series about the train passengers surviving a meteorite strike a few years ago was the same.


----------



## DotCommunist (Dec 29, 2009)

Stigmata said:


> I like how it's almost a rule that everytime the apocalypse hits, one proper nutter always survives. That series about the train passengers surviving a meteorite strike a few years ago was the same.



You can always rely on one sociopathic nightmare to get through. He doesn't stop to help the wounded, he robs thier goods and moves on. The rules and strictures are all gone? Fine. He was struggling to operate under them anyway.


----------



## Balbi (Dec 29, 2009)

Stigmata said:


> I like how it's almost a rule that everytime the apocalypse hits, one proper nutter always survives. That series about the train passengers surviving a meteorite strike a few years ago was the same.



The Last Train, that was awesome for the first few episodes and then went cack 

I liked the triffid attacks themselves, but the tension wasn't there.

And Izzard was having a right attack of the Jack Bauers in surviving the plane crash - and what did he do first? Get a new suit  Pro.


----------



## Lord Camomile (Dec 29, 2009)

I did quite like how pleased he was with himself that he'd survived 

That reminds me of another daft bit though - as he emerged from the wreckage of the plane he was still carrying a shredded, deflated lifejacket, just in case anyone hadn't got that's what he was using them for.


----------



## Balbi (Dec 29, 2009)

If i'd survived a plane crash like that i'd be well chuffed  I'd go and get a suit and some tequila and mock the sightless.


----------



## Lord Camomile (Dec 29, 2009)

Although thinking about it, he would have looked quite the fool if he'd trundled off into the loos with everyone else's lifejackets, only for the pilot to make an announcement shortly after "We apologise for that little bit of turbulance, but you'll be happy to know it's smooth flying from here until our destination".

Embarrassing....


----------



## southside (Dec 29, 2009)

Can you smoke a triffid?

You would need to build a Tulip and lighting the thing could prove to be a bastard.

Wadaya think?

Izzard looks like he's been hot knifing one.


----------



## MikeMcc (Dec 29, 2009)

Chuckled at the 2CV


----------



## TheHoodedClaw (Dec 29, 2009)

Love ActionGrrrlll


----------



## discokermit (Dec 29, 2009)

i told you all it would be shite. according to a mate of mine, everyone who worked on it thought it was shite.


----------



## killer b (Dec 29, 2009)

what the fuck? 

that was the shittest ending to anything ever.


----------



## MikeMcc (Dec 29, 2009)

discokermit said:


> i told you all it would be shite. according to a mate of mine, everyone who worked on it thought it was shite.


Yah, boo, sucks

Much better tonight. Triffids much more menacing and the story line was closer to the read stryline (apart from teh weird mask bit).


----------



## Maurice Picarda (Dec 29, 2009)

The schtick with the triffid tentacles sneaking into rooms and grabbing at people is oddly reminiscent of the xenobaths in _Kraken_. Perhaps they got muddled.


----------



## MikeMcc (Dec 29, 2009)

killer b said:


> what the fuck?
> 
> That was the shittest ending to anything ever.


Apart from the mask bit it was pretty similar to the book


----------



## killer b (Dec 29, 2009)

the mask bit is what i meant. why didn't they even try to explain it?


----------



## Maurice Picarda (Dec 29, 2009)

MikeMcc said:


> the story line was closer to the read stryline (apart from teh weird mask bit).


 
Well, yes, apart from that.

The enormous importance of Masen's parents is particularly odd given that Wyndham's character mentions merely in parenthesis that his folks croak in a holiday air bus disaster, and seems entirely unaffected by it.


----------



## MikeMcc (Dec 29, 2009)

Very true, I'd forgetten that.  I still enjoyed it. A lot closer to the original story thatn the 60s series, brought up to date a bit (despite the silly no-signal phone thing). Yesterday built up the program and today provided the finale.   I think it worked, despite the flaws.


----------



## Reno (Dec 29, 2009)

MikeMcc said:


> Very true, I'd forgetten that.  I still enjoyed it. A lot closer to the original story thatn the 60s series, brought up to date a bit (despite the silly no-signal phone thing). Yesterday built up the program and today provided the finale.   I think it worked, despite the flaws.



There was no 60s series. There was a rubbish 60s feature film and a fairly faithful but zero production values 80s series.


----------



## Stoat Boy (Dec 29, 2009)

Not as good as last night and a bit of weak ending but I thought the Triffid threat was handled very well and they did seem rather sinister.

All in all agreeable Christmas TV tosh and I think the BBC got more right than wrong with it.

I would still rate the 1981 series higher in my own post apoc listings but it was still a worthy contribution to a genre that the Brits can do as well as anybody.

Noticed they announced the screening of the second series of 'Survivors' for January 12th just before it and I can only hope that the BBC do that much better than the first load of old bull.


----------



## Santino (Dec 29, 2009)

Stigmata said:


> I like how it's almost a rule that everytime the apocalypse hits, one proper nutter always survives. That series about the train passengers surviving a meteorite strike a few years ago was the same.





Balbi said:


> The Last Train, that was awesome for the first few episodes and then went cack



Now we must get to Ark.


----------



## London_Calling (Dec 29, 2009)

bloke waves pot noodle content in front of voodoo mask. Something happens. The End.


----------



## MikeMcc (Dec 29, 2009)

Reno said:


> There was no 60s series. There was a rubbish 60s feature film and a fairly faithful but zero production values 80s series.


pedants - peuch! You know what I meant!


----------



## Mad Badger (Dec 29, 2009)

I thought last night's episode just about held up, but tonight's went down hill.

Can someone explain the ending to me? How did a mask get them out? Voodoo? If so, what a weak cop out. Tipped it from cheese to shit for me.


----------



## paolo (Dec 29, 2009)

Mad Badger said:


> Can someone explain the ending to me? How did a mask get them out? Voodoo?



Not voodoo. It was about applying triffid poison to the eyes, and only the eyes. The mask was a just a device to do that.


----------



## Mad Badger (Dec 30, 2009)

paolo999 said:


> Not voodoo. It was about applying triffid poison to the eyes, and only the eyes. The mask was a just a device to do that.



With the intention of...? If I'm being really dumb, I apologise, but I don't understand what happened. Why did the triffids back off?


----------



## TrippyLondoner (Dec 30, 2009)

I missed the 2nd part, don't feel i missed much. Its amazing how misleading a 1 minute trailer can be.


----------



## paolo (Dec 30, 2009)

Mad Badger said:


> With the intention of...? If I'm being really dumb, I apologise, but I don't understand what happened. Why did the triffids back off?



I think at that point one needs some kind of 'biological license'.

The triffids go for the eyes, but they can scent when the eyes might be triffid-like?


----------



## Santino (Dec 30, 2009)

It was the wisdom of a Magic Black Man. What more explanation do you need?


----------



## Mad Badger (Dec 30, 2009)

paolo999 said:


> I think at that point one needs some kind of 'biological license'.
> 
> The triffids go for the eyes, but they can scent when the eyes might be triffid-like?



Um.... ok  Well, whatever the reason, it seems like a terrible cop out and a weak ending. The book's sugar in the petrol tank ploy was realistic and feasible. 

Tsk.


----------



## 19sixtysix (Dec 30, 2009)

Just watching part one. 

Its bad. Utter pish. Izzard is the xmas turkey.
I'll watch the 80's one later to try and remove this one from my memory.


----------



## Pingu (Dec 30, 2009)

part 2 was better...

by better i mean in the manner that being shot is better than being clubbed to death


was ok i guess but not if you had read the book. should have been a proper mini series so they could do the full storyline. it felt rushed and deviated from the book loads


----------



## Reno (Dec 30, 2009)

It started out very poorly, but it got better as it went along. In the second half it actually catches the feel of the novel fairly well. At least it had some Triffid action in it, unlike the 80s snoozfest which dealt with the actual plant menace for about two minutes in its entire running time. Not the quality adaptation I was hoping for, but still the best version so far. Shame that the BBC can do Austen and Dickens well, but doesn't make the same effort when it comes to adapting a sci fi classic.


----------



## DotCommunist (Dec 30, 2009)

Arse, I was pished and fell asleep, then woke up in time to see the credits roll. Fucks sake.

I'll watch it 'pon de iplay


----------



## editor (Dec 30, 2009)

I couldn't be arsed to watch part 2 and think that was a wise move.


----------



## invisibleplanet (Dec 30, 2009)

paolo999 said:


> I think at that point one needs some kind of 'biological license'.
> 
> The triffids go for the eyes, but they can scent when the eyes might be triffid-like?





Santino said:


> It was the wisdom of a Magic Black Man. What more explanation do you need?



I really liked that addition - it seemed plausible. 

I did get a bit annoyed at first, being the adaptation-must-follow-original-storyline freak that I am, but then I relented and enjoyed it and even got a bit scared!


----------



## Pie 1 (Dec 30, 2009)

We watched the first half last night (rec'ed pt 2) & Mrs Pie turned to me half way through and said with a facepalm expresssion "why is the writing/acting so shit? - why do they have to make it so fucking BBC1?"


----------



## ATOMIC SUPLEX (Dec 30, 2009)

Ah, I just remembered in the nick of time about the eyes, despite having flashbacks that got really close for the last two episodes. Shit climax and lazy writing. PLUS the Triffids looked shit and were not frightening. The last BBC ones were tall and dominating with a horrible sound (not a growl).


----------



## London_Calling (Dec 30, 2009)

I was musing on the difficulty of putting on this kind of drama right on the watershed - the same problems that Torchwood had earlier in the year. It's not a Dr Who audience (the youngsters are in bed) and it's not an entirely adult audience - plenty of early to mid teens about. Stuff like True Blood goes out at 22.00pm I think - and, as best I can tell, that even has a teenage cast.

So what are you pitching to whom? At least someone like HBO has a very clear demographic in mind - pitching si-fi to a BBC1 drama audience right on the watershed . . . I guess they think, after the ratings success of Torchwood, it's a realistic objective. Sounds ambitious to me, very easy to get it less than decent.


----------



## Pie 1 (Dec 30, 2009)

London_Calling said:


> [True Blood]as best I can tell, that even has a teenage cast.



Nah, it doesn't. Adult cast - early 20's upwards. 25-40 probably average.
Also very saucy, shit load of swearing & some pretty full on gore.


----------



## bridgy45 (Dec 30, 2009)

Part 2 was definitely better (although that isnt saying much!).I thought eddie izzard was ok in it.Just good enough to be a menacing coward.It all seemd a bit rushed though and the special effects were crap.Not the best programme.


----------



## maldwyn (Dec 30, 2009)

truly disappointing, and what's worse I doubt I'll see another attempt in my lifetime. 

my favorite bit of script was when the boss lady at the gherkin implied the departure of the romans caused the collapse of the the railway system.


----------



## existentialist (Dec 30, 2009)

maldwyn said:


> truly disappointing, and what's worse I doubt I'll see another attempt in my lifetime.
> 
> my favorite bit of script was when the boss lady at the gherkin implied the departure of the romans caused the collapse of the the railway system.


It might make an interesting thread, to see if anyone who has read and loved a particular book has then gone on to watch the film-of-the-book and been impressed.

I am sure it happens, but I think it is probably quite rare. And certainly a made-for-TV adaptation is even less likely perhaps than a film to hit the spot, simply because the budgets and creative inputs are that much smaller (not that big budgets necessarily make things better!).

As far as Day of the Triffids goes, there's another challenge - I think it's always a bit trickier to turn a first-person narrative into an action script, and quite impossible to do so without losing most of the reflective aspect of such a narrative. In the book, we're inside Masen's head; any film or TV adaptation puts us outside, as onlookers, and that's a big shift to accommodate if you're already familiar with the book.


----------



## William of Walworth (Dec 30, 2009)

Stoat Boy said:
			
		

> Firstly there are holes in it that you can drive a bus through....
> 
> but its also not bad. Not bad at all. As a post apoc saddo I think they got the intial chaos done rather well and *whilst the script was a tad a cheesy at times let us not forget  that this is a drama about 99%+ of the worlds population being blinded by a solar flare and then being eaten by flesh eating plants that can walk. *
> 
> Enjoyed it very much and am looking forward to the second part. And I thought Eddie Izzard was rather good although how he survived in the first place, well that really is taking dramatic licence a tad to far.



Bit in bold : This is why I was able to enjoy it, and why I didn't judge it too harshly

Implausible plot, implausible melodrama -- but I still thought the triffids were suitably sinister. I know there were various faults/weaknesses, but it's probably about 30 years  since I read the book so I wasn't making demanding comparisons.

I _liked_ Eddie Izzard's all but moustachio-twirling Murder In The Red Barn style Victorian melodrama-esque villainy! 

The two leads were dull and their lines/scripting (and acting too) were quite poor, but they were just devices to hang the triffid action on -- the triffids were definitely more important anyway.

I liked the convent scenes 

I was OK with the mask-based denoument as well, but not with them emigrating to the IoW ... yes I know that was quite close to the book, but I think I'd rather be monstered by a triffid than be exiled there!  

Call me undemanding and undercritical but overall I'd be on the 'Far From Completely Crap' side of any Urban vote


----------



## Reno (Dec 30, 2009)

bridgy45 said:


> though and the special effects were crap



Really ? I thought for a TV adaptation they were pretty good, especially the triffid effects.


----------



## Stoat Boy (Dec 30, 2009)

William of Walworth said:


> I was OK with the mask-based denoument as well, but not with them emigrating to the IoW ... yes I know that was quite close to the book, but I think I'd rather be monstered by a triffid than be exiled there!



Having wasted far to much of my life speculating on every type of post apoc senario the Isle of Wight does offer, at least for the short term period of say 5-10 years, a very good spot for any survivors to head for.

The island has very little, if any, piped gas which means it has a much higher percentage of houses with independant means of heating so getting through winters would be much easier. That part of the world has a good climate (apart from the odd Tornado) and the seas at least on side of the Island that faces the mainland are pretty calm and would make for easy crossing and fishing along with having both Southampton and Portsmouth for scavagening.

Long term it lacks the natural supplies of salt and coal that would be required to make a long term go of rebuilding but as an inital base its difficult to find its match.


----------



## dlx1 (Dec 30, 2009)

like it rushed, tried to pack every thing in the last 20 mins.

Disappointing. Can see Izzard as a Dr Who


----------



## _angel_ (Dec 30, 2009)

Is this being repeated at all on any of the other BBC channels?? I had to miss it last night.


----------



## invisibleplanet (Dec 30, 2009)

dlx1 said:


> like it rushed, tried to pack every thing in the last 20 mins.
> 
> Disappointing. Can see Izzard as a Dr Who



Wow. So can I now you've mentioned it, he'd be a Dr. Who of Tom Baker proportions! Although I confess that I would prefer it if the 12th incarnation was a female doctor.


----------



## gnoriac (Dec 30, 2009)

End was very disappointing.

Masen was such a great strategist: I know, we'll attract millions of triffids and then we'll be able to escape in the confusion... of course, we'll have to think up some way of getting past them in the next half an hour. 

And having spent both of the parts building up to him deciphering triffid communication and defeating them through that, they suddenly forget about it and instead luckily find a repressed memory about the African mask and triffid juice.

Maybe the script was originally much longer and the BBC made them cut it down to 4 hours?


----------



## William of Walworth (Dec 30, 2009)

Stoat Boy said:


> Having wasted far to much of my life speculating on every type of post apoc senario the Isle of Wight does offer, at least for the short term period of say 5-10 years, a very good spot for any survivors to head for.
> 
> The island has very little, if any, piped gas which means it has a much higher percentage of houses with independant means of heating so getting through winters would be much easier. That part of the world has a good climate (apart from the odd Tornado) and the seas at least on side of the Island that faces the mainland are pretty calm and would make for easy crossing and fishing along with having both Southampton and Portsmouth for scavagening.
> 
> Long term it lacks the natural supplies of salt and coal that would be required to make a long term go of rebuilding but as an inital base its difficult to find its match.



All fair enough  but I've spent time there *pre*-apocolypse  --scenic, nice beer/pubs but deeply dull, and struggling to update itself into the 1980s! 

Hence my pisstaking sideswipe in the other post ...


----------



## William of Walworth (Dec 30, 2009)

gnoriac said:


> Maybe the script was originally much longer and the BBC made them cut it down to 4 hours?



I liked it far better than you did, but that's quite plausible I think.


----------



## Badgers (Dec 30, 2009)

Just me that enjoyed it then?


----------



## William of Walworth (Dec 30, 2009)

Badgers said:


> Just me that enjoyed it then?



Nah, I enjoyed it a lot more than I was critical of it </half way off fence  >.


----------



## Pingu (Dec 30, 2009)

invisibleplanet said:


> Wow. So can I now you've mentioned it, he'd be a Dr. Who of Tom Baker proportions! Although I confess that I would prefer it if the 12th incarnation was a female doctor.


 
he could wear a dress too...


he would make a good doctor


----------



## madzone (Dec 30, 2009)

I've just watched it all. My house is surrounded by trees


----------



## London_Calling (Dec 30, 2009)

In Cornwall?


----------



## madzone (Dec 30, 2009)

Yeeeeeeessssss, we have trees in cornwall


----------



## kittyP (Dec 30, 2009)

Watched both parts on the iPlayer last night and loved it. 
It was totally ridiculous but great fun. I was a bit special too which helped with the fun


----------



## Voley (Dec 30, 2009)

I'm torn whether to watch this or not now. Torn, I tell ya.


----------



## kittyP (Dec 30, 2009)

NVP said:


> I'm torn whether to watch this or not now. Torn, I tell ya.



Watch the first part and see how you go?
It wasn't so dire that it will be a total waste of you life (imo).


----------



## Voley (Dec 30, 2009)

Can't be worse than the film I just watched. Righteous Kill. Total shite. De Niro and Pacino, too. Oh how the mighty have fallen ...


----------



## QueenOfGoths (Dec 31, 2009)

Badgers said:


> Just me that enjoyed it then?



I enjoyed the second half better than the first - more triffid action plus Brian Cox, who I have a bit of a soft spot for.

I didn't mind the mask thing either, though I did wonder where Major Coker got his plane from and what accent Vanesa Redgrave was trying to do!


----------



## Santino (Dec 31, 2009)

QueenOfGoths said:


> what accent Vanesa Redgrave was trying to do!



Received proNUNciation?


----------



## QueenOfGoths (Dec 31, 2009)

Santino said:


> Received proNUNciation?



Ah-ha


----------



## existentialist (Dec 31, 2009)

QueenOfGoths said:


> I enjoyed the second half better than the first - more triffid action plus Brian Cox, who I have a bit of a soft spot for.
> 
> I didn't mind the mask thing either, though I did wonder where Major Coker got his plane from and what accent Vanesa Redgrave was trying to do!


I think the plane thing is a nod to the book, when (Chapter 16 - Contact) they get a visit from a man called Ivan Simpson, who comes in a helicopter. He's the one who tells them about the Isle of Wight.

Having watched the second part, I'm considerably less impressed than I was at the end of the first. I think they fell into far too many of the traps that film adaptation types are caught by, with too many gimmicks and last-minute reprieves - frankly, the whole mask/serum stuff was just too corny for words, for example.

I would love to see some adaptations done where they didn't appear to fuck around massively with the plot, just for the sheer self-indulgent hell of it. Except I probably won't - I've watched about 10 hours' TV this Christmas, which is about five times the amount I've watched for the rest of the year, and pretty much nothing I've seen has inspired me to want to try and watch more next year. So I'll probably end up missing out on the good stuff as well as the bad.


----------



## QueenOfGoths (Dec 31, 2009)

existentialist said:


> I think the plane thing is a nod to the book, when (Chapter 16 - Contact) they get a visit from a man called Ivan Simpson, who comes in a helicopter. He's the one who tells them about the Isle of Wight.
> 
> Having watched the second part, I'm considerably less impressed than I was at the end of the first. I think they fell into far too many of the traps that film adaptation types are caught by, with too many gimmicks and last-minute reprieves - frankly, the whole mask/serum stuff was just too corny for words, for example.
> 
> I would love to see some adaptations done where they didn't appear to fuck around massively with the plot, just for the sheer self-indulgent hell of it. Except I probably won't - I've watched about 10 hours' TV this Christmas, which is about five times the amount I've watched for the rest of the year, and pretty much nothing I've seen has inspired me to want to try and watch more next year. So I'll probably end up missing out on the good stuff as well as the bad.



One thing I am uncertain of - in the book have the Triffids engineered the light show thing which sends everyone blind or is it just a 'happy' coincidence?

It wasn't explained in the show, unless I missed it  and I wondered if it was a feature of the book which they didn't use.


----------



## madzone (Dec 31, 2009)

QueenOfGoths said:


> I enjoyed the second half better than the first - more triffid action plus Brian Cox, who I have a bit of a soft spot for.
> 
> I didn't mind the mask thing either, though I did wonder where Major Coker got his plane from and what accent Vanesa Redgrave was trying to do!


 He got his plane from the Isle of Wight and Nessa was trying to do Irish.
Next!


----------



## QueenOfGoths (Dec 31, 2009)

madzone said:


> He got his plane from the Isle of Wight and Nessa was trying to do Irish.
> Next!



I did think Irish but then it wavered a bit, and a bit more


----------



## Belushi (Dec 31, 2009)

QueenOfGoths said:


> One thing I am uncertain of - in the book have the Triffids engineered the light show thing which sends everyone blind or is it just a 'happy' coincidence



In the novel its never determined but its speculated that it's either an American or Soviet weapon thats gone wrong.


----------



## existentialist (Dec 31, 2009)

QueenOfGoths said:


> One thing I am uncertain of - in the book have the Triffids engineered the light show thing which sends everyone blind or is it just a 'happy' coincidence?
> 
> It wasn't explained in the show, unless I missed it  and I wondered if it was a feature of the book which they didn't use.


The book is (deliberately) vague on it.

My understanding was always that the triffids had been discovered (there were hints that some kind of Russian genetic engineer was involved) much earlier, and that triffid seeds had possibly been distributed as a result of a plane crash, prior to their potential as a source of oil being identified. So, by the time of the cosmic light show, triffids were regarded as something of a curiosity, but a rather mundane and boring one.

The cosmic light show is never actually explained, but it is clear that both it and the subsequent "plague" which affects London and, later, Tynsham (and which isn't referenced in the TV show) are considered to be possibly the result of inner space weaponry and/or biological warfare agents.

The whole premise of the book, though, is that there are these mundane items which, on their own, cause no major problems, but which in combination pose a massive threat to humanity. So the triffids were no problem until our main advantage over them - sight - was lost to most of the population, at which point they became the main influence over our survival.

The copy of the book that I have (Penguin edition, ISBN 0-14-118541-4) has a very interesting introduction and commentary by Dr Barry Langford, who seems to be something of a triffid commentator now


----------



## QueenOfGoths (Dec 31, 2009)

Belushi said:


> In the novel its never determined but its speculated that it's either an American or Soviet weapon thats gone wrong.





existentialist said:


> The book is (deliberately) vague on it.
> 
> My understanding was always that the triffids had been discovered (there were hints that some kind of Russian genetic engineer was involved) much earlier, and that triffid seeds had possibly been distributed as a result of a plane crash, prior to their potential as a source of oil being identified. So, by the time of the cosmic light show, triffids were regarded as something of a curiosity, but a rather mundane and boring one.
> 
> ...



Thank you both


----------



## Belushi (Dec 31, 2009)

I started watching the second part this morning and then switched it off, absolutely idiotic adaptation of one of the greatest works of British dystopian Science Fiction. Despite its poor production values the Beeb's early Eighties adaption remains superior in every way.


----------



## madzone (Dec 31, 2009)

QueenOfGoths said:


> I did think Irish but then it wavered a bit, and a bit more


 I think she spent some time in Scotland and possibly had American parents


----------



## existentialist (Dec 31, 2009)

Another one of Wyndham's books which was a pivotal influence on me as a youngster was "The Chrysalids". I had often thought what a fabulous film or TV piece that might have made - visions of glowing radioactive slag and all the other post-apocalyptic stuff, as well as a good story and some interesting cautionary stuff.

But, having watched "Triffids", I don't think they could hope to do any kind of reasonable job on it, and I hope they don't try.


----------



## DotCommunist (Dec 31, 2009)

existentialist said:


> Another one of Wyndham's books which was a pivotal influence on me as a youngster was "The Chrysalids". I had often thought what a fabulous film or TV piece that might have made - visions of glowing radioactive slag and all the other post-apocalyptic stuff, as well as a good story and some interesting cautionary stuff.
> 
> But, having watched "Triffids", I don't think they could hope to do any kind of reasonable job on it, and I hope they don't try.



You read Freak Angels?

It's a very, very good graphic novel set in Whitechapel that takes the intriguing premise 'What if the Midwich Cuckoo's had survived?' and runs with it. Really good wyndham inspired post-apocalyptic fiction. The art is fantastic and the writing top notch.
http://www.freakangels.com/?p=23


----------



## existentialist (Dec 31, 2009)

DotCommunist said:


> You read Freak Angels?
> 
> It's a very, very good graphic novel set in Whitechapel that takes the intriguing premise 'What if the Midwich Cuckoo's had survived?' and runs with it. Really good wyndham inspired post-apocalyptic fiction. The art is fantastic and the writing top notch.
> http://www.freakangels.com/?p=23


I haven't read it, but it sounds interesting.

Oh, also, despite being disappointed by the show overall, I thought someone's description of Eddie Izzard as a moustache-twirling villain was very accurate, and if nothing else, I think he stole the show (not that there was much competition). I hope very much that we see a lot more of him in acting roles...


----------



## marty21 (Dec 31, 2009)

mentalchik said:


> Well i thought it was not bad at all............you're all just a bunch of jaded misery-guts !



just watched the first episode on iplayer, quite liked it tbh, on the second episode now


----------



## tar1984 (Dec 31, 2009)

I didnt watch the second one because it clashed with family guy.


----------



## marty21 (Dec 31, 2009)

it was ok, a bit hammy, but enjoyable hokum imo


----------



## vogonity (Dec 31, 2009)

Enjoyable adaptation for the most part. I liked the "global cooling" concept. Eddie Izzard was good fun. 

A bit rushed in the 2nd half - how quick were those girls to call Bill and Jo, "Mum and Dad"? - and the whole was (most unforgivably) lacking in the menace of the original novel.


----------



## Mab (Jan 1, 2010)

Well I also saw the 50's version as a tiny girl in the 60's with my dad, I was so scared. That night I had to wake my parents up and crawl into their bed (tiny too), I was terrified. Finally I relaxed but then noticed my parent's bedroom drapes where white and covered with a vine motif. I screamed and was kicked out of their bed.
I can still hear that rustling sound.


----------



## Maurice Picarda (Jan 22, 2012)

Maurice Picarda said:


> Awful. Travesty. Not even a cosy catastrophe.



I had no recollection of this and of how bad it was and I've just watched an hour of it all over bloody again. Bugger.


----------



## Chz (Jan 23, 2012)

I think we managed half an hour. It was impossible to sustain suspension of disbelief. Utter dross, but it was this or the war romance thing on BBC1.

We went to bed instead. (If it helps to make up for it, we watched the Meades on France thing on iPlayer before Triffids came on)


----------



## ska invita (Jan 23, 2012)

Has anyone posted the original theme music/opening credits?
 
That's how to scare a generation of children


----------



## Bakunin (Jan 25, 2012)

Nah, the Triffids intro was far less scary than the 'Play Safe' adverts, IMHO:


[


----------

