not to want Agatha Christie sexed up.

How weird.

Sexing up Christie I mean, not your post Christine

No. No. No.

I agree - totally unnecessary. These stories can stand on their own. I remember watching one adaptation where the heroine didn't marry the hero but instead went off with a female character giving the impression it had become a gay relationship. No, I am not saying there is anything wrong with gay relationships (before anyone jumps down my throat), just that it is not in the original story.

I think that sometimes modern productions use language that would not have been used at the time the story is set. I think that there are more and more of these things happening lately. I am not keen on the practise at all - at times has spoiled the production.

I don't like to watch Shakespeare in modern dress - I can understand the language being modernised so it is understood by everyone but not the change of dress - but that maybe because I then have more problem identifying the characters!!

No. Agatha Christie stories don't need sexed up. Its all wrong!

Disgusting and totally unnecessary.

Don't remember any rape scenes in her books....so made up then?
They are normally good old fashioned family viewing for Christmas, perhaps not in this case.

Exactly. Why bother dramatising an Agatha Christie if they don't like it - they could take the trouble to write their own.

NO!
Non!
Nein!

Goodness, no! I can't even remember any Agatha Christie stores where rape was even hinted at...(except possibly as soething 'unpleasant' that had happened in the dim and distant past).

I thought 'And Then There Were None' was done very well last Christmas, athough some of the language was a) not of the period and b) quite sweary!

Hope the BBC hasn't overdone it this time...

stories not stores!

Her books were not as naive as these "modernisers" appear to think. There are several of them where two women are living together in rather intense relationships, and some of the stories imply unwanted attention from bounders and cads. The difference is that she didn't find it necessary to the plot to follow her characters into the bedroom, she left it to the reader to add details as they wished. A pity that is not the policy of some writers today. Less is more where sex scenes are concerned.

Since DH mentioned it a couple of months ago, I have been taking note and he is right. Almost every time a gay couple meet or depart in the soaps they exchange a kiss, but heterosexual couples never do. I do not have a problem with couples of any variety kissing each other, even before the watershed (although I would prefer not to witness anything more intimate) but cannot understand why the scriptwriters only include Gay Kisses.

The scriptwriters are very busy demonstrating that they are Inclusive and Not Prejudiced, Granny23 so they don't notice that they haven't included the heterosexual majority.

I watched a movie version of Evil Under the Sun just a couple of nights ago, great character cast, Joan Collins etc.
I saw that Witness for the Prosecution was going to be on.
I will give it a try but do not understand the reason for 'sexting it up'. If they want do productions of the classics they should respect them.

Surely the problem with producing an Agatha Christie story is that the David Suchet Poirot series was so well done in terms of authenticity and faithfulness to the plot, not to mention sheer charm – and the Miss Marples were pretty good too – that it is almost impossible to improve on them. Thus the choice to take the easy route to grab an audience with some 21st-century "reality" by those with no imagination.

NO !

The stories are of their time and this gratuitous use of violence and swearing does them no favours. I have no problem with swearing or violence if it's pertinent to the story line.

David Suchet was brilliant as Poirot I agree.

No family viewing for this one.

I think I need to see it before I comment - I mean last year the Daily Mail printed all sorts of hysterial reviews in advance about the "shocking" nature of the adaptation of Christie's ".. and then there were none" that emphasised swearing and drugs. However I found it to be a very good thriller.

I take the DM's reviews with a big pinch of salt as I think a lot is part of their anti-BBC bias

If anything is sexed up, it is to sell it to a young market. It seems to be a modern requirement that is tedious to the more mature. But it gets young people watching.
I am personally sick and tired of gratuitous sex in all programmes that I watch.

Or even adverts, I've had enough of seeing everything sexed up on the adverts. It doesn't make me want to buy anything, in fact it puts me off.

But no, Agetha Christie should not be sexed up. What is wrong with having programmes for the more mature person? Surely we grown into programmes like these as we get older?

I wish they would stop changing the plots.
I find myself saying " That wasn't in the book!" repeatedly.
It's not really Agatha Christie at all and shouldn't be called that .

Bring back Joan Hickson, is what I say!