ABC Murders -Poirot

I don't think I'll ever fancy a poached egg for breakfast again.

But there is a feast of classic vintage Poirot on ITV3 in the afternooon.Beautifully filmed and acted.

I heard the producer explaining an bad reviews as being because she challenged viewers ideas about who Poirot was.
Which means we were to old and stuck in our ways and used to David Suchet.

I do love the way writers, producers and directors blame the viewer when what they produce rubbish. Their job is to provide television content that viewers enjoy and if a series like this isn't liked and loses viewers then they have not done their job properly. Don't try and blame the viewer for their bad errors of judgment.

DD worked in the television industry for 20 years, until 6 months ago. Her opinion of many of the people on the creative side of the industry is excoriating, and always has been.

I read the reviews on here, watched about 5 minutes of the first episode - some weird over-acting I thought. Have deleted remainder.

If this had been a drama about Joe Bloggs, a policeman with a disturbed past, coming out of retirement to solve a string of murders I would have thought it was a jolly good plot.

Poirot? No way!

I watched it as if it was Joe Bloggs and I liked it, especially the last episode.

If you thought his accent when speaking English was bad then his Walloon French was even worse, dull and stilted.
Considering there was mass panic, just dreadful.
DD had watched it and said mine is better, and my accent is awful.

What the priducer failed to realise is that many of us read Agatha Christie books when we were young, so know what Poirot is supposed to look like, as described by Captain Hastings in my earlier post.

M0nica, the producer's comments about the viewers displays an arrogance which, sadly, may be typical of many in the BBC today.

We are definitely bucking the trend here. I have watched the first two episodes with DH and DD and we have enjoyed both and are looking forward to number 3. I love Agatha Christie but it is so long since I read it that I have forgotten it. Perhaps we have enjoyed it as we are not really treating it as AC , much like FarNorth.

Well, I stuck with it. The end was fairly satisfactory, but I really didn't enjoy the flashbacks, as I was mystified by the coffee overflowing.
Why do the BBC over think these dramas. It was the same with the production of "Then there were None" in 2015.

Did they change who was the killer - as they have done with other adaptations?

I was prepared to accept a reworking of Poirot what I couldn't stand was the unnecesary violence and the endless repeated flashbacks.

I know I have said this already but did anybody see any of the ITV3 Poirot dramas this last week in the afternoons?
Proper casting, authentic sets, lovely acting - basically the Poirot series we probably all remember from ITV a few years back.
While we are on the subject of Agatha Christie, I only really liked Joan Hickson as Miss Marple. The others since have either been too fey (Geraldine McEwan) or feisty (Julia McKenzie)
Plus Joan Hickson was a dead ringer for my dear late MIL and it is like seeing her again!

They got Doncaster railway station wrong. Made it look like a small local station, rather than the mainline station it is. Not aware there was an Empire, either (but could be mistaken). There was The Grand theatre, however.
The programme was OK, but far too long and dark, and I do think they got some of their facts about the era wrong.

Had assumed from the first episode that we are seeing the killer all the time, the young disturbed stocking seller, but in seeing the second episode it became obvious who the real killer is, so quite clever from that point of view.
If I am wrong then even more clever!

What on earth was all that garbage about Poirot being a priest? Where did she dredge that up from? Why did the land lady and her daughter have to be such weirdos? Why all the meaningless flash backs that added nothing to the plot? Why didn't she just write the script with completely new characters and present it as her own creation, instead of mangling a perfectly good book for no reason?

Because her creative abilities are limited Deeda so she can only write for characters others have created- hence Eastenders!

Those of us,who have grown up with Agatha Christie & her detectives will have our favourite portayals. This physical portrayal did not do it for me. However it might appeal to a virgin Poirot audience and open the stories up to a new bunch of viewers.
I have never written much, other than jeuvenile poetry, but I think adaptation and screen writing is not as easy as some are implying..unless of course we are in company of gifted script writers..then I apologise.

The Davis Suchet version of A B C murders was actually on TV the same night as the first episode of the Malkevitch version. So we watched both. We enjoyed it apart from the priest backstory which changes his character too much. We have read all the original Agatha Christie novels. I must admit my favourite Agatha Christie films are the Margaret Rutherford Miss Marple films, which are nothing like the novels.

PECS I don't think it is necessary to be a "gifted scriptwriter" to make observations and criticisms about a piece of work, or to put forward suggestions for why someone chooses to adapt rather than create. The fact is that there are some remarkable and well written original dramas out there and some incredible adaptations which manage to innovate without losing the nature of the original. This was neither.

I must say we enjoyed the last episode, which we’ve just watched. I’ve been avoiding you lot today in case I saw any spoilers here. We didn’t guess who the killer was (we never do), and I can’t remember who it was in the book (ditto). But it was a good episode, imho (apart from the priestly background, which I guess was all made up?).

DD, (ex BBC employee) said that it is the classic BBC reaction to any criticism. Blame the viewer for lack of imagination/intelligence/anything they can think of, never ever admit that the BBC itself could have got it wrong.

My dislike of this series had nothing to do with the portrayal of Poirot. I have seen very few of the Suchet Poirots. I disliked the series because it was dull (in every sense) boring and derivative.

Screen writing isn't that difficult. DH has done a couple of courses in script writing and then written plays that have been performed by amateur theatre groups.

I have never written much, other than jeuvenile poetry, but I think adaptation and screen writing is not as easy as some are implying..unless of course we are in company of gifted script writers..then I apologise.
PECS you have obviously not read the latest play wot I wrote.

Perhaps adaptation of novels and screen writing may not be as easy as some may assume, but I think we are, in the main, capable of dissecting, criticising and judging whether or not it is enjoyable, good or even worth watching.
And deciding that in fact we think it is rubbish.

Views may differ, of course.

Yes, I was right, it woz the BIL wot done it!

obvious, because he was the only nice one