Anyone else just see Day of the Triffids? Page 3

Quote: Renegade Carpark @ December 30 2009, 12:09 AM GMT

Not really, the Triffids are basically plants and slow moving ones at that. There's this new thing that top scientists have invented called 'fire'. If the Triffids can produce fossil fuels, the little green bastards would have gone up like Michael Jackson's hair in a Pepsi advert.

But no, for some reason, they thought 'Let's shoot them with guns, but not from a distance, that would be stoopid, let's stand really close to them so they can kill us.'

A load of old pants with a bit of poo in them I'm afraid.

View original

There is something called 'the willing suspension of disbelief'. If you try to get into something it is much more enjoyable. I know it's very B-movie; man-eating killer plants but I think the horror comes from how society reacted to to the situation. If we all woke in the morning, blind, just what would you do? Would you trust the people that can see to do right? If it was about the plants then there would have been a neat resolution where we saw the sterilisation plan happen. But because all they did was escape to the Isle of Wight and not wipe out the Triffids shows it was about how people survive.

Just go with it.

I loved it; it was well lit, well shot, the music was perfect and Eddie was suitably chilling.

I caught the second half. was expecting alien type creatures invading us. But no it was just Little Shop of Horrors on a bigger scale. Was quite funny. I laughed more at this than at Big Top.

My ten year old neice kept laughing too.
She seemed to find the whole premise amusing.

Quote: zooo @ December 30 2009, 11:06 AM GMT

My ten year old neice kept laughing too.

View original

Bitch.

I enjoyed it. Yes, it had it's faults. The triffids were a bit CGI naff and not particularly scary. It was clearly six half hour episodes stitched together. And the whole thing was infected with a Doctor Whoish lack of jeopardy, unlike the eighties series which did contain genuine moments of nastiness. But I'm a sucker for apocalypse films and dramas and had a rollicking good time watching it.

Me or her?

Quote: zooo @ December 30 2009, 11:21 AM GMT

Me or her?

View original

As if you have to ask!

Quote: The Rook @ December 30 2009, 3:32 AM GMT

There is something called 'the willing suspension of disbelief'.

View original

Rook, I understand where you are coming from, I'm more then willing to suspend my disbelief for any number of fantastical television shows / movies.

However, it's not the Triffids who are at fault, it's the unrealistic actions of the protagonists in these dramas that always makes me give up. Especially if one of the leads was supposed to be a top scientist who spent every day for the last ten years working with Triffids.

Even the villains were dumber then usual - 'Let's not switch on the electric fence now, let's go stand near some Triffids for fun, who knows, some of us could get killed.' and 'Hey, one of my own men has betrayed me and I nearly died, I know, I'll shoot him in the leg.'

The fact that 10 men with hedge strimmers could have destroyed most of the Triffids in an afternoon is inconsequential.

Quote: Renegade Carpark @ December 30 2009, 11:44 AM GMT

The fact that 10 men with hedge strimmers could have destroyed most of the Triffids in an afternoon is inconsequential.

View original

You know nothing about Triffid control! Sure, you could take out some with a hedge strimmer, but the Triffs' lethal stingers would have stung them lethally pretty quickly.

They would have had no chance against 100 hundred vegans armed with Linda McCartney salad dressing.

Also as I said before; they can walk, see, talk and think. They're not really plants aren't they.

That said I was gripped well acted, well filmed, good effects it was a top notch bit of scifi hokum.

Anal scifi arguments you may want to have.

1 Why didn't the Death Star have Ti fighters patrolling it?
2 If the Terminator can transport metal encased in flesh why didn't anyone shove a plasma gun up their bum?
3 Why does no one in Startrek wear a space suit? Then moan about airborne infections loss of oxygen etc.
4 Why on primitive planets with guns in StarTrek does no one wear a 20th century bullet proof vest?

They would have had no chance against 100 hundred vegans armed with Linda McCartney salad dressing.

Also as I said before; they can walk, see, talk and think. They're not really plants aren't they.

That said I was gripped well acted, well filmed, good effects it was a top notch bit of scifi hokum.

Anal scifi arguments you may want to have.

1 Why didn't the Death Star have Ti fighters patrolling it?
2 If the Terminator can transport metal encased in flesh why didn't anyone shove a plasma gun up their bum?
3 Why does no one in Startrek wear a space suit? Then moan about airborne infections loss of oxygen etc.
4 Why on primitive planets with guns in StarTrek does no one wear a 20th century bullet proof vest?

Quote: sootyj @ December 30 2009, 12:03 PM GMT

They would have had no chance against 100 hundred vegans armed with Linda McCartney salad dressing.

Also as I said before; they can walk, see, talk and think. They're not really plants aren't they.

That said I was gripped well acted, well filmed, good effects it was a top notch bit of scifi hokum.

Anal scifi arguments you may want to have.

1 Why didn't the Death Star have Ti fighters patrolling it?
2 If the Terminator can transport metal encased in flesh why didn't anyone shove a plasma gun up their bum?
3 Why does no one in Startrek wear a space suit? Then moan about airborne infections loss of oxygen etc.
4 Why on primitive planets with guns in StarTrek does no one wear a 20th century bullet proof vest?

They would have had no chance against 100 hundred vegans armed with Linda McCartney salad dressing.

Also as I said before; they can walk, see, talk and think. They're not really plants aren't they.

That said I was gripped well acted, well filmed, good effects it was a top notch bit of scifi hokum.

Anal scifi arguments you may want to have.

1 Why didn't the Death Star have Ti fighters patrolling it?
2 If the Terminator can transport metal encased in flesh why didn't anyone shove a plasma gun up their bum?
3 Why does no one in Startrek wear a space suit? Then moan about airborne infections loss of oxygen etc.
4 Why on primitive planets with guns in StarTrek does no one wear a 20th century bullet proof vest?

View original

Sorry, if there's a gag in repeating your message content I've missed it.

No an error has it never happened to you?

Why do TV hacks always think they can improve on their source material? The 1981 TV version of Day of the Triffids stayed far closer to the plot of original novel than either this latest attempt or the old feature film, and was much better for it.

Popular novels are successful because the story works. The only changes should be those necessary for this story to work in a dramatic medium. A good example is True Grit, which follows Charles Portiss classic almost word for word, but truncates the ending, diverging from the narrative of the book but staying true to the spirit.

Wholesale reinventions almost never work.

Joely Richardson is damn tasty.

Quote: Timbo @ December 30 2009, 12:43 PM GMT

Why do TV hacks always think they can improve on their source material? The 1981 TV version of Day of the Triffids stayed far closer to the plot of original novel than either this latest attempt or the old feature film, and was much better for it.

View original

I'd disagree with you there. I thought this was remarkably similar to the 1981 version. It was clearly six half hour epiodes stitched together, and each episode followed largely the story of the 1981 episodes (obviously with a few notable changes).

Although generally I have nop problem with scriptwriters not staying true to a novel. TV and films are a different medium to books, and often to make something work you need to take liberties. For erxample, LA Confidential is a great adaptation of the novel, despite the fact that they jettison huge chunks of the story.

Quote: chipolata @ December 30 2009, 12:48 PM GMT

I'd disagree with you there. I thought this was remarkably similar to the 1981 version. It was clearly six half hour epiodes stitched together, and each episode followed largely the story of the 1981 episodes (obviously with a few notable changes).

View original

The changes were sweeping and all unnecessary for the translation to the screen.

Although generally I have nop problem with scriptwriters not staying true to a novel. TV and films are a different medium to books, and often to make something work you need to take liberties. For erxample, LA Confidential is a great adaptation of the novel, despite the fact that they jettison huge chunks of the story.

Yes in a fat book material needs to be jettisoned, and this can result in changes. And sometimes what works in a book does not work in a film, and a different tack is required. But the aim should always be to capture the core narrative. Most adapters are not in the same creative league as the novelists whose work they are adapting, and certainly do not have the same guiding vision, so attempts at improving upon the source material almost always fall flat.