The Pale Horse by Agatha Christie

I don’t think I’ll bother. I hate it when they mangle or ‘sex up’ a perfectly good plot, and modernise dialogue so that it sounds all wrong for the era/type of characters.

Like a pp, I like the superlative Joan Hickson Miss Marple best. She was after all the actress Agatha Christie herself wanted for Miss M. Some of the ITV remakes were IMO not a tiny patch on the Hickson versions.
In particular I remember Sleeping Murder - wonderfully creepy in the JH version, and utterly ruined by ITV.

The more publicity stuff I read about the less like the book it sounds. Such a pity because I really like the book.

I don't know the book and think I will continue not knowing it, as I understand the TV drama has changed a lot of things. I thoroughly enjoyed the first episode this evening and it's probably best enjoyed as a stand-alone drama rather than an adaptation of the novel.

Well what did you think I m not familiar with the story so it was new to me I watched it all without falling asleep
Anyway the jury’s out not sure if I enjoyed it or not trying to understand it

Well I fell asleep not impressed with it.

I thought it was an enjoyable bit of hokum with its "witches" and echoes of the Wicker Man. The characters were all quite distinctive, so it wasn't too confusing . It doesn't require you to think too deeply about it, which suited me fine.

I don't know why they go through the charade of calling it an Agatha Christie story. It would have been much better if she had just changed the title and the names and presented it as her own work. I can only think that the dramatist saw The Wicker Man as a small child and has never got over it.

I read this when I was about 14 but couldn't really remember it so I will take it as a new story and not an Agatha Christie.

I said immediately to DH 'that is not Surrey, it's the Cotswolds - nothing like Surrey!' And of course, it was filmed in the Cotswolds.

marmelise I haven't heard that word for years - brilliant!

I read this years ago, but cannot remember the story. I still have the novel in my bookcase, so may dig it out after the series ends. I enjoyed The Pale Horse tonight, it was something good to watch for sunday night and quite creepy in bits.

I am enjoying this so far.

I just wonder why modern playrights have so little confidence in their abilities, that they have to justify their work by hiding behind the pretence of adapting another author's work for the screen, when all they have done is taken the germ of an idea from another author and then woven their own work round it. A perfectly respectable thing to do.

I didn't see the programme last night, but as I understand so much of the story has been changed that Sally Phelps could have put it forward as her own original work, called it 'The Witches Sabbaoth' or something and had it stand on its own merits.

It is a perfectly good piece of work without the need to drape it with Agatha Christies name and the pretence that anything more than the idea came from her book, 'The Pale Horse'

Yes I thought exactly that, M0nica.
But I thought I'd watch it last night anyway, just to spot the anachronisms, I'd identified just one before I dozed off!

Who saw The Pale Horse last night? I found it spooky and didn’t really enjoy it. I will watch the final episode next week to try to get to grips with it.

Er, I'd just like to say that it is an established fact that Rufus Sewell ins MINE!

Haven't watched it yet and this thread hasn't helped the decision!

You’re welcome kitty all yours, he doesn’t float my boat

Over the years I’ve e joyed all the AC adaptations on TV. They’ve often been on Sunday evenings and are firmly in my category of Good stylish Sunday Evening Non Challenging TV
It’s years since I actually read her and I didn’t read everything. Anyway, the point is, I can’t remember much. What I think is true though is that the various adaptations have made for far more nuanced and interesting character developments than the books ever did.
I thought Pale Horse ticked all the boxes last night apart from the ridiculous use of the Cotswolds for Surrey. Really silly.
Her works are still in copyright by the way ( until 70 years after her death). Her family own 36% and the rest has been bought and sold by various companies over the years. In 2014 the latest corporate owner sold the exclusive TV rights to the BBC of the works they own. So I guess they can do what they want with them as long as long as they make money.

Thank goodness it is only in two parts, I don't think I could stick with more.

So many basic changes from the book. Mark Easterbrook was single and going out with a high brow intellectual. There were no dead wives or lovers. He witnessed Thomasina Tucker getting into a row in a cafe and later recognised the name when he saw her death in the paper.

The list of names was found in the shoe of a priest and a key witness was a fussy effeminate chemist who seems to have been replaced in this version.

Also Mark's name didn't appear on the list.

Why bother calling it an Agatha Christie adaptation? Sarah Phelps has obviously messed around with the murderer as well.

It's a totally different story with several key characters missing or totally changed.

It held my attention, which is an achievement at that time of night, never read the book so it’s all new.
If a book is made into a film or TV, or vice versa I will never watch / read as well, because a film is always very different

I did wonder when I was watching how any times Rufus Sewell could change his shirt and how many GNers were lusting after him when he did it. Haven't read the book It seems just a harmless bit of hokum. But I love the fashions. And it's nice to see Rita Tushingham again.

When I watched Granchester with JN I used to play ‘spot the excuse for a shirt change’ eg torrential rain, blood, vomit . I then enjoyed the shirt change.

I don't think that playwrights are hiding behind anything. if the ending is the same as the AC one (ie the reasons behind what is happening and how it happens) then it would be plagiarism to copy them. This is an adaptation, and doesn't pretend to be anything else.

I enjoyed it, FWIW, and will look forward to the next episode.

What is not clear to me, though, is how the names on the list can be identified as particular people. Some of them are very distinctive, but others could be anyone. I know that is probably the least of the improbabilities, but I managed to suspend disbelief of the others, yet that one rankled for some reason .

Why is everyone hyperventilating over Rupert Sewell? He was handsome, in a Byronic fashion, in his youth, now he is just very ordinary looking. He is getting very florid as well.

Is everyone hyperventilating over RS? Slight exaggeration there MOnica

Well several people have