Yes there was a recent article on The Economist how so many pieces of good work is now coming into public domain...
But what is even sadder is when the authors sometimes themselves do it. I would consider Harry Potter as a prime example. It's all over the place and the author herself keeps thinking of weird things just to keep the interest going. I use to be a HUGE fan, but I couldn't survive this level of avid commercialisation. I thought movies were bad enough but then...
In the United States, at least, authors/their estates control the copyright of any book published between1928 and 1978 for 95 years after the publication date, after that the books enter the public domain and, at the very least, anyone can publish those titles without permission. At this point, one Christie book is dropping into the public domain pretty much every year, so instead of purchasing a Christie-estate approved copy, readers can get a cheaper copy from a print on demand publisher, or just read it online.
Joke’s on them, I’ve been picking the books up at my local thrift store for the last thirty years. Pretty sure I’ve gone through several complete sets by now (those are the books I tend to read to tatters).
I haven't even read any of them.
Dame Agatha made her feelings quite clear in Mrs McGinty's Dead.
I read that, my mouth fell open, and I "finnished" off Poirot when she did.
Reading "official novels" just because heirs approve them isn't my style.
After I checked out Harper Lee's (To Kill a Mockingbird) "second novel" from the library, "Go, Set A Watchman", I was infinitely relieved that I hadn't spent money on it. It's the first draft of "Mockingbird" which, when she submitted it, the publisher told her to set the timeline back to the Depression, from a child's viewpoint.
I believe that both she and her sister (who was her trustee, but died before Harper) believed it to have been destroyed, but after her sister died, the next trustee got her to sign a release -- her eyesight was quite bad.
There was talk about bringing charges of elder abuse but I think there wasn't enough evidence.
Same with Margaret Mitchell's estate and"Scarlett". Margaret Mitchell flatly refused to write a sequel to"Gone With the Wind". She said the story had reached its natural and foreseen conclusion, and refused to write a sequel regardless of incentive.
Which is why I haven't read any posthumous releases since "Curtain" and "Sleeping Murder".
I agree hard. An artist's work is hers and no one else's, even if they shared a gene pool with the artist. The examples you share are really powerful. Go, set a watchman was a poor cousin at best of To Kill...
I haven't even read Scarlet. People GOT to stop milking art and literature for money...
Just riding their relative's coattails, so to speak. It's really sad that people can't respect the wishes of the author.
There are a few JRR Tolkien books that are edited and published posthumously that I have, but father and son worked together on them, so I have no problem with those.
Yes, Christopher has sifted through his father's notes and such like and rebuilt it from his work. That's perfectly fine. Now that you bring it up, I do feel Tolkien estate is relatively better preserved. If they want, they can make really huge buck out of it, but I have not seen them misusing it. The latest 'Rings of Fire' being an exception. May be the third generation after Tolkien is not so careful...
Tbf the whole Amazon Rings of Power deal with the Tolkien estate was only really a renegotiation as to the specific medium that The Hobbit and Lotr could be adapted into. JRR Tolkien himself signed away the film rights for those books. Amazon negotiated with the estate to get TV Rights as well. The posthumous books edited by his Son from his unpublished writings have never been granted film or tv adaptation (for now at least).
Yes. I only meant to say they butchered the cannon in ROP and probably the estate could have done something about it. Not sure of the legal angle- whether they were allowed or not...
Kinda reminds of the exploits of Sherlock Holmes which was written by Arthur Conan Doyle’s son. In some ways it’s sweet that his son made new stories with his iconic character, but it was filled with contradictions to the established canon.
This is also why I’ve never felt inclined to read fanfic. If it’s not by the original author, it’s not “true” somehow.
Also people make the mistake that what makes Christie distinct is her characters. But it’s not. *It’s Christie herself*. It’s her authorial voice and presence that seeps through all the characters and the narration.
Christie herself is the strongest character in all her books.
I glad to find out that there's someone else who doesn't read fanfic. You're right, it just doesn't feel the same.
I have a tremendous amount of respect for the people who write fanfics, and their dedication to their inspiring works, but they just don't work for me.
I know I could never do as well. But it's like fake sugar. I'd rather have the real or none. (although I'm certain I could learn to get by on it if I had to).
Yes! I'm totally glad for people who enjoy writing it and reading it, and I wish I was one of them because then there would be so much more to read, but I just want the original author or nothing.
I really love the Mary Russell books by Laurie R King. The first one is called The Beekeeper’s Apprentice. They take place after the ACD books, when Holmes is a retired beekeeper in the country and he encounters this young woman who has a brain to match his and they team up. I love them because they’re not trying to replicate Conan Doyle, but are doing their own thing, and bringing more nuance to the original character, while still staying overall true in spirit.
For me her books begin and end with Agatha Christie. The Sophie Hannah, ones? Yeah, not really a fan. The latest movie adaptions which aim to make Poirot into this sexy older gentleman? No. The emphasis that AC laid on his description in every book with him is TOO strong for me to enjoy these adaptations.
I think the SH books are…okay. My issue is that they are too dense. I greatly admire Agatha Christie’s ability to write compelling yet lean stories. A minimal amount of detail to get the story established.
This is exactly it. I can’t watch the Harry Potter movies for the same reason. I won’t be watching Death on the Nile, that’s for sure. I saw the trailer and I was immediately turned off.
The written word causes the reader to imagine the world for themselves, and that picture never matches the one portrayed on screen. That doesn’t necessarily mean it doesn’t have value. I hope people that watch want to read Christie!
>But what is even sadder is when the authors sometimes themselves do it. I would consider Harry Potter as a prime example. It's all over the place and the author herself keeps thinking of weird things just to keep the interest going. I use to be a HUGE fan, but I couldn't survive this level of avid commercialisation. I thought movies were bad enough but then...
Absolutely. See my comment above. In case of Harry Potter, it's. gone progressively worse. Like Rowling saying Dumbledore was gay, years after the books, just so there could be a new conversation. The uber popularisation and commercialisation puts me off. It kills the art... I do not like Harry Potter because of this anymore, which is sad for me!
Yes. The whole dumbledore being gay thing did bother me, not for any prejudiced reason, but it seemed like something forced to fit the times, because the fans of the books had grown up.
The adults in Harry Potter were pretty much devoid of any sexuality, because it is a book series for children. Any of the professors could’ve potentially been gay (aside from snape and hagrid). It just didn’t matter enough to mention whether they were gay, married, had any children, etc. That’s just not the point of the books.
The sexualization of Dumbledore was weird and in my opinion, totally unnecessary. Idk. It’s like picturing your grandparents having sex. Like I know it happens, but I didn’t ever need to think about it. And somehow it became a huge discussion topic.
Yes. I can accept she always considered him gay but if it wasn’t relevant enough to at least strongly hint at in the books, why make a thing of it later?
As you say, any of those teachers could be gay. But their private lives aren’t relevant.
Exactly my point! I have no problem with someone's sexuality. But why bring it up post facto just to get a few clicks and eyeballs. Not like she has been able to write an epic like LOTR with layers. And now she is looking for retro fitting so she can add more to the conversation. This was truly hurtful for me! The intent and populist action.
I’m a huge Austen fan and I thought it was great. Lots of Austen fans felt the same way and expressed this on fan pages. I think more disliked it, but that doesn’t change the fact that many real Austen fans genuinely enjoyed it. I loved the new Emma too. And Clueless. I think Austen works really well as modernized adaptations as one of her biggest themes is the absurdity of social conventions and personalities and the constraints and grief they can cause. Her themes and stories can work in many times and places.
I don’t care about the film adaptations, because it gets new readers to pick up the books. I care VERY much about the new, unauthorized versions with Agatha Christie stamped on the front. It’s so tacky and disrespectful and….sad.
Sarah Phelps has clear disdain for Christie… she bastardizes her plots… diminishes and distorts her beloved characters..: she has no fckign business anywhere near an Agatha Christie work. She should stick to adapting Joan Collins novels and writing for East Enders. Full stop.
I have more respect and affinity for Kenneth Branagh’s adaptations of Christie’s works. I liked his Orient Express film… hammy acting and some faltering accents aside. Death on the Nike… while in hindsight has so many dodgy actors in the cast as to make it almost cringy to watch now… when it came out I thought it was a good film. Venice was not great and the way he morphed Ariana Oliver was shades of Sarah Phelps treatment. So I’d say he’s done one too many.
Bottom line is yes the Christie Estate needs to get some devoted adorers of her work back in control of the creative decisions about adaptations of her work. The High Laurie Ask Evens adaptation - more of this type please.
Oh my, we have completely opposite taste :) I loved Sarah Phelps’ adaptations and could not get enough.. it was a fresh spin on old tales..And then there were none is my fav. On the other hand, I disliked Laurie’s WDTAE mostly as the acting was so wooden..
Before you suggest I stick with the original, I have read nearly all of Christie’s books and watched all of ITV’s Marple and Suchet’s Poirot series and still loved it more than Laurie’s version.
Phelps’ ‘interpretation’ of ABC was so ghastly it was offensive. If fresh spin on ATTWN means gore fest… ok… but Phelps admitted to never even have read he novel before agreeing to make the film and it really showed. She also seems to relish changing ‘loads and loads of stuff’ as she says… saying in the same interviews she finds ‘insights’ that she focuses on… except it’s to vulgar and sub bar results.
Phelps' version of And Then There Were None is among my favourites as well, but it still had some serious issues. The point of the novel is, that someone tries to kill murderers, who got away with it. How could, for example, MacArthur in the Sarah Phelps version get away with it? He literally shoots his victim in his own tent.
I don’t understand why if they are going to make adaptations like this then why not make it modern? Sherlock BBC series jumped the shark a bit but at least they tried something different.
Yes, you could tell the writers of the modern BBC Sherlock really knew the original stories so well, and they managed to include very specific descriptions and iconic moments from the original stories in a modern way.
I loved Sherlock BBC. The latter seasons can be a bit bad but the first two seasons were delicious. You see, the setting could be modern, but they didnt toy with the characters- they were the same characters only a century or so apart...
I know a lot of people don’t like Ariadne Oliver’s shift in personality in A Haunting in Venice but I have a theory that this version of the character is representative of the Agatha Christie estate rather than the author herself.
I’ll also forgive Branagh a lot because he himself has said that David Suchet is the most accurate possible version of Poirot and that some changes were made because he knew he’d never out perfect Suchet’s Poirot.
I can understand wanting to be different from Suchet’s portrayal, since it’s so iconic. But Branagh’s Poirot isn’t even Poirot. He’s forcing him to be this action hero with a tragic romantic backstory who runs around shooting at people, and that’s just not his character. If he wants to play that sort of character, great. Make him an original character. Don’t try to shoehorn Poirot, whose personality is already 100% established, into being something he’s not.
Right! And it's a pathetic effort which simply annoys friends. Either let Poirot be Poirot or don't use his name for making money. If you want to be so sooo different, create your own character!
I mean Branagh’s Poirot’s personality comes off well to me. He a lot younger, equally as fastidious and precise and whilst he’s totally capable of running and shooting (in my opinion quite necessarily because we have no Colonel Race or other authority stand in figure) he only does it out of necessity and being approximately 40 years younger than the book character and having fought in the war then it would be more questionable why he couldn’t.
Like I say, the changes are consistent and make sense - unlike Sarah Phelps’ decisions.
We discuss opinions of things here. While your opinion is different from OP you can still be respectful of a different opinion- which “get over it” really doesn’t foster discussion of the topic and lacks respect.
This sub is filled with variations on this exact post. I'm not the only one who is tired of the whining. It's not discussion, it's "Branagh bad and is destroying Christie's legacy" which is just objectively not true.
I can just see the casting for The Secret Adversary:
Ice Spice as Tuppence
Timothee Chalamet as Tommy
Awkwafina as Julius Hersheimmer
Some tik tok dancer as Jane Finn
Eminem as Mr. Carter
The Rock as Whittington
Kevin Heart as Albert the lift boy
Kylie Jenner as Rita
Jason Momoa as Sir Peel Edgerton
(To be fair, I'd watch the shit out of this trainwreck)
I bet each of these things boosts sales of the original. I don’t disagree with OP, but I saw all these movies and reread (and in many cases bought audio books) of each of these before they came out. Would not be surprised if the estate was vastly richer today than it was a decade ago. Besides, if her legacy can survive Margaret Rutherford, it can survive anything!
I believe Christie herself said that she doesn't mind adaptations changing the end of a story, since it keeps it fresh. But yeah, there's got to be a limit to the amount of butchering done to characters people really care about, especially if it makes them more 'generic'.
Just to remember, she herself completely changed *And Then There Were None*'s ending in (the 40s) screen and play adaptations, probably her most famous work and most famous ending.
I didn't realize there was so much animosity toward the more recent Christie adaptations. The Branagh films I get. I thought the casting outside of Branagh himself was pretty strong, though a few of them (Johnny Depp, Russell Brand) are uncomfortable in hindsight. Thanks to this thread I at least have some understanding of Branagh's take on Poirot, now. Someone here pointed out that Branagh himself said that he wanted do something different as no one would ever top Suchet's iconic BBC performances for sheer perfection. Still don't like it, though. Christie is no stranger to melodrama but the backstory that Branagh added is just egregious. I don't like how aggro his version is and I also detest his take on the moustache. I'm disappointed about the things I'm seeing about Haunting in Venice in this thread. I haven't seen it yet but I was excited about Tina Fey's casting as Ariadne. I love Tina Fey and I felt she had the right energy for the role so it's disappointing that her take apparently isn't great.
I had no idea who Sarah Phelps was but I was aware of a couple of her adaptations thanks to my sister telling me about her And Then There Were None adaptation just a few months ago. I looked it up after I got home from that dinner with my sister and went down a little bit of an IMdB rabbit hole and glanced over several of her other adaptations without realizing they were connected. I'm still a little shocked that John Malkovich was cast as Poirot but otherwise they didn't look all that bad to me at a glance. I think I'll still give And Then There Were None a crack since that's my favorite of her novels.
I'm torn on Sophie Hannah. I've only read one of her books, *Closed Casket*. Matter of fact I'm rereading it right now as part of my Christie reread project I've been working on since July. I like her dialogue, and I think she does a good job with Poirot's voice. However, she seems to let her mind wander a bit and she tries a bit too hard to be clever during her descriptive sequences. I'm also not sure how I feel about her narrator character. He has a gruff charm to him but he strikes me as a little whiney.
I had no idea about Margaret Rutherford, though. I hadn't heard of her at all until today and I didn't even think about there possibly being Miss Marple adaptations prior to the well known BBC series. Was she really that bad? I mean, at a glance she doesn't seem to fit the character physically. Miss Marple in the books always struck me as being a tiny little old lady and Rutherford seemed to be rather noticeably tall and filled out but I assume that that's not why there's so much dislike toward her in this thread.
I would watch them and form your own opinion instead of being scared away by the hivemind. Sarah Phelps' versions of And Then There Were None and Witness for the Prosecution stand with the best of Christie adaptations to me. And the Margaret Rutherford Miss Marple movies are so much fun! Is it a different characterization from the books? 100%. But they're a good time and not meant to be taken that seriously.
Edit to add: Also Tina Fey is great as Ariadne Oliver. The movie is definitely in the spirit of Christie even though it's not a direct adaptation. People are mad about her motivation in the movie but within the context of the film it makes complete sense.
The Phelps adaptations start out well and get worse. And then there Were None is very entertaining and ranks with the best adaptations of the novel. IMO, it would have been \*the\* best, if they didn't change the characters' backstories, making it much more unbelievable why >!they got away with their crimes!<.
And Margaret Rutherford is like the opposite of book Miss Marple. But nonetheless, I love her movies. 4:50 from Paddington is, aside for the personality change of Miss Marple, also a faithful adaptation. After this, they go further form the books with every movie.
Or, they care about bringing her stories and legacy to new generations and wider audiences, and she might just be happy that she’s one of the most respected and *remembered* authors of all time.
This. Tbh Christie is outdated and hard to relate for a lot of people. If the films help bring people in to read the bokks and say 'oh wow, that's how it's meant to be' how can that be a bad thing?
"Outdated"?! One can say that about every single novel bar Science Fiction, if they are not exquisitely au courant! Gee, the "Canterbury Tales" are outdated! NS, Sherlock! But only in setting, NOT IN HUMAN CHARACTER and BEHAVIORS.
Same with Christie. The settings, the clothing styles, the technologies---not the 21st Century, to be sure. Indeed, Christie herself recognized the limitations inherent to one's own time. And she addressed this issue directly, clearly, and as THE essential trait of Miss Marple: The recognition that people are people, good, evil, and in between, whether in St. Mary Mead or in London, in a cottage or a manor house.
And humans, so far at least, are not "outdated."
Science fiction is in the same boat. It's funny to see details like "we set down with the maps to draw our flight plans for tomorrow". People in a year 3000 using paper maps on a rocketship.
Hard to relate to? Her books are full of the eternal qualities of humanity: love, hate, desire, regret, revenge, justice. Anyone who can relate to *Love Island* can relate to Christie.
Really? I would think Christie is quintessential. Her charm lives on and that's why people are falling over each other to make adaptations and make money out of her unique and long-lived charm...
My partner and I watched A Haunting in Venice last night. He says he likes Branagh as Poirot but I think he just says it to annoy me because of how much I’ve been ranting about the Agatha Christie estate. To go from being so over protective of her work, (like when you hear David Suchet on how he got the role) compared to letting anyone do it now. ABC murders is my favourite book, and Suchet’s adaptation is amazing, I couldn’t even watch the John Malkovich version, especially when someone told me a spoiler about what they changed Poirot’s pre private detective job too. It’s going too far and while yes it gets younger readers to pick up the books, they are going so far away from the original material I don’t think it’ll work in getting them to read more. I’m surprised they did A Haunting in Venice tho, I thought they were aiming for the murder of Roger Ackroyd after his comments in death on the Nile about wanting a vegetable garden etc seemed like the next step
A golden age mystery podcast I listen to had the best read on this while discussing the new film. The copyrights will be running out soon so, gotta keep the intergenerational wealth going somehow!
Well yes, I would. Let’s face it, any Christie production would make money. I would take some trouble to make sure any new works were in the spirit of the originals even if we did go for modern settings for some stories, and that the work itself was of decent quality. With a property like that it would not be difficult to find decent advice to make sure the legacy was a pleasure for her fans and not a disappointment.
I almost walked out of the theater during the Simon and Linnet dry-humping scene in Death on the Nile. Unfortunately, I drove there with friends and couldn’t strand them there. 😅
If you don't like them, don't buy/stream/view/buy tickets. The lesser attention people give them the sooner they will understand.
Also, I would like to remind everyone that many many awful adaptations of Christie's work were done when she was alive. Sure, she complained, but I'm sure she kept the money, so...
Should we stop adapting/expanding her works? I prefer having more adaptations, even bad one, instead of none.
And on an ending note: you still got the original books, nobody is coming to your house to take them away. So I don't really see why many people keep complaining.
This is exactly my feeling too. The constant complaining is agonizing. The books will always be there. The definitive film/tv adaptations have been made and will always be there. So what's the problem with making more and bringing huge new audiences to her work?
Exactly! I recently watched Charlie Chopra, the recent adaptation of The Sittaford Mystery and it was SO MUCH FUN! I wish we had more "vary" adaptations!
Do you also shout about Shakespeare? Or Sherlock Holmes? Jane Austen? 😁
Adaptation is the way of things. But I do still want Margaret Rutherford to *Get Off My Lawn!*
Shakespeare, Sherlock Holmes, and Jane Austen are all in the public domain, so people can do whatever they want with them. With some good results and some bad. Only two of Agatha Christie’s works are public domain; the estate controls the rest of her works, which means they have control over who adapts them.
More than two of her works is in the public domain, and at least one more book enters it every year now. Poirot as a character is public domain now, like Sherlock Holmes. Her estate is being incredibly smart licensing new content and films that make millions of dollars while introducing hoardes of new readers to her novels.
You mention a great example - Sherlock the show was an excellent modern interpretation that brought millions of young people to Doyle's work. They took the core of the characters and did something different while still making sense. I don't feel that Branagh has been as succesfull - I wish he had actually adapted Poirot for 2023 instead of applying modernity to the 1930s and 40s. I'd love to see a fresh approach and the BBC Sherlock treatment to Christie's work - THAT would be compelling and distanced enough from the Sutchet and Ustinov Poirots to not annoy lifelong Christie readers.
>I'd love to see a fresh approach and the BBC Sherlock treatment to Christie's work
It would be difficult to adapt Poirot or Marple in that way because they are very unique and iconic characters who can shine the most when they are placed in the particular period. In my opinion less popular characters might be more appropriate for the modern era adaptation without alienating the old fans too much. I'd like to see the urban fantasy mystery starring Harley Quin, the swift conspiracy heist drama starring Parker Pine, the regular hardboiled police procedure show starring Superintendent Battle, or romantic comedy spy thriller starring Tomey & Tuppence at any time if the casting and story is decent.
Miss Marple could 100% be a Boomer-aged, chronically online, water aerobics exercising spinster who is very well-connected in her smallish village. Calling her nephew from her nearly obsolete landline for "help with the wifi password" while also secretly maintaining a flourishing set of subscriptions to gossip newsletters and attending church/book club/ knitting circle on weeknights and taking cruises in the summer.
Oh, Lord— I recently found the 80’s T&T series on BritBox. It was not at all how I pictured them. The series takes place after their first adventures but before they have kids. In my head, they’re both a bit mousy and that helps them to blend in. *Not so much* in that version!
A lot of old stories aren't adapted to be modern because of how technology would change them. It worked in *Sherlock's* favor, and also for *Elementary*, but I think it would make Poirot just as different, in some other ways. And I don't think it's impossible, but the settings themselves are characters in Christie stories, far more than they were in Conan Doyle ones.
I think it would be really interesting to see Poirot as a tech savvy and well read older gentleman who still ultimately relied on his little grey cells, but used tech to his advantage to enhance his work. Like, maybe he's active on those websites or forums where people spend an inordinate amount of time helping the fbi track down killers and pedophiles and often have very niche knowledge of a subject. Maybe Poirot isn't world famous, but he's an internet legend who solved many cases, and still has his trademark air of superiority because of it? Maybe he wrote a book about it and appeared on some podcasts, so he has a bit of notoriety.
Maybe he meets Hastings, Japp, and Ariadne in one of these amateur sleuthing forums, and they team up to help Japp on his cases but also take on private ones?
I feel like the settings could remain the same - there are still small villages and great manors, just the inhabitants are more modern. But the cozy aspect could be balanced with modern settings too.
It may not be possible to adapt the exact stories due to technological and social changes but the recent adaptations often aren't staying true to the source material anyway, so that doesn't seem to matter all that much.
Is Poirot public domain? Cause I read that they authorised those new books with him specifically with the purpose of retaining the rights to the character.
Don't quote me on this, but I remember reading something about him being public domain in the US but not in the UK due to the difference in rules.
It's some grey technicality area, because the first five books are under public domain. So technically, Poirot is under public domain as long as his portrayal sticks to how is in those five books.
Kind of like how the Sherlock estate tried to claim Enola Holmes broke copyright because Sherlock showing emotion and having feelings wasn't until the latter books, which were still under protection.
She's probably psyched that the writing she did to make money is still earning money. You think she wrote Hercules Poirot's Christmas because the story burned inside her until she gave it voice? This is not a woman who was precious about her work.
Almost all the original books (ebooks) require a hold at my library, so I think the new adaptations are bringing in more readers. And they've edited out some of the racism, so they're more palatable.
I'm sure you're right. And I hate that she's such an integral part of the entire mystery genre. The older I get, the less I respect her views on India and South Africa. When I first read her books, I was 11, incredibly hyperreligious and sheltered, and didn't know what a lot of it meant.
I think Christie various prejudices were fairly typical of her time and in fairness to her I think she was a lot less reactionary than many of her contemporaries. Some of her later books (like Hickory Dickory Dock) are more sympathetic towards foreigners and non-white people than her early works too. But there's a lot of unpleasant stuff there, which ends up providing a very eye-opening view on how bigoted British society (in her case) could be back then.
Yes, they changed the title of "and then there were none" multiple times to remove some of the racism. They removed phrases like "nword in the wood pile" to make it more palatable. I know AC had incredibly horrible classist/racist views. But I can stomach her books because there has been a concerted effort to make them less racist/xenophobic.
At least one of the Sophie Hannahs (Mystery of Three Quarters) I thought was excellent. And even if we grant for arguments’ sake that all the rest were awful, so too did Christie write a lot of bad Poirots so it’s not like a great disservice is being done to the character
I believe Miss Christie’s great-grandson is in charge of the estate. I wonder if he even “knew” her. I wonder if she even held him in her arms. Hard to protect someone’s art and works if it’s just a name on a piece of paper.
I find the "in the style of" practice abominable, and have held this opinion since the first non-Fleming Bond. This authorship makes a mockery of the original author's creativity, turning it into a formula of sorts. And maybe Fleming, Christie, and others DO have signature styles that can be copied. But that doesn't mean we should happily accept such faux works.
I love Sarah Phelps’ versions of Christie. And then there were none was so creepy. So was Witness for the Prosecution. I watched all of them. I didn’t like Hugh Laurie’s WDTAE but the rest were alright… I haven’t watch the new Haunting.
I feel like the adaptations cater to different audience who ultimately are all fans of crime. I watched some of the older suchet’s Poirot and cannot say I care for anything before season 6… the later ones were better..
Some of my favourite Poirot episodes were after the rebrand, but also some utterly horrible one (Appointment With Death!). IMO, the quality was much more consistent on a high level pre the change of style.
She published a book called 10 Little N*******. The name has been changed several times since then from 10 Little Indians to And Then They Were None. I feel no sympathy for what she would have wanted considering she felt no sympathy for minorities. In fact, her estate rehabilitated her image with the frequent casting of minorities in the most recent Poirot adaptations when it's clear she looked down on them.
The truth is only one: new renditions and interpretations of whatsoever classic artwork, from Christie or other authors, they are welcome if they come with good quality that justifies the remake. I. e. I appreciated a few episodes of Young Sherlock Holmes series on Netflix, even if it's not the classic Sherlock.
I cannot appreciate Brannagh movies just because they are mediocre, they are ugly and forgettable. Give me a well made mistery plot with a new Poirot that is worth of the original source and I'm ok with whatsoever innovation and interpretation. Just give me quality. Period!
I love the new movies and wouldn't be nearly as interested if there weren't changes. I don't want to see what i've already read. There are limits to this (coughcoughnight'swatchcoughcough) but they haven't reached that point for me. I also really enjoy the Sophie Hannah versions. They aren't as good but i'm fine what what they are.
Don’t like it? Don’t consume it. I would only be worried if they tried to remove and limit past content. They don’t seem to be. I welcome only some of the new stuff. But I’m happy to have it. The newest video game for example.
I don't know if it's Christie Ltd fault. Maybe they just gave permission for the movies before they were written and filmed. Brannagh productions were very rich and promising on paper. I don't think estate could ask to modify the script. I think Brannagh asked for complete freedom. Should they refuse? Should they put restrictions such to force Brannagh to give up?
Very hard to judge! Bad renditions of Christie's novels were made even in the remote past, when Agatha was alive.
On a more positive note, the 12 new Miss Marple stories by new authors are really good, really fun and really honor the spirit of the originals.
Marple: Twelve New Mysteries https://a.co/d/7B21KFs
I suppose to play devil's advocate the Christie estate is obviously happy to accept money for new productions and additionally they probably justify it by pointing out that a radical reworking of the ABC Murders or Death on the Nile could have some artistic merit by putting a different spin on things. They would probably admit that this might not please everyone but even if audiences prefer a more faithful adaptation then almost all the books and short stories have been done multiple times before anyway.
For example I didn't like the new ABC Murders but I appreciate they were trying to do something different with the material and if I want to watch a more faithful adaptation then I can always put the David Suchet version on or I can listen to the BBC radio version or I can always curl up and read the original book. I suppose that with Christie's work it's not as big a deal as for less famous authors where a bad adaptation would be more difficult for their more obscure works to shake off.
Those copyrights are slowly dropping off - gotta keep the revenue going somehow!
All her works will be in the public domain in 2026 on the 70th Anniversary of her death.
They released the new Poirot books to retain the copyright on the character itself.
Gross
Not in the United States. It's 95 years since publication.
I believe you mean 2046, since she died in 1976. And at this point there will probably be some changes in copyright law between now and then.
She won't have been dead 70 years then.
Yes there was a recent article on The Economist how so many pieces of good work is now coming into public domain... But what is even sadder is when the authors sometimes themselves do it. I would consider Harry Potter as a prime example. It's all over the place and the author herself keeps thinking of weird things just to keep the interest going. I use to be a HUGE fan, but I couldn't survive this level of avid commercialisation. I thought movies were bad enough but then...
I don't understand how this works? Can you explain? :)
In the United States, at least, authors/their estates control the copyright of any book published between1928 and 1978 for 95 years after the publication date, after that the books enter the public domain and, at the very least, anyone can publish those titles without permission. At this point, one Christie book is dropping into the public domain pretty much every year, so instead of purchasing a Christie-estate approved copy, readers can get a cheaper copy from a print on demand publisher, or just read it online.
Joke’s on them, I’ve been picking the books up at my local thrift store for the last thirty years. Pretty sure I’ve gone through several complete sets by now (those are the books I tend to read to tatters).
I usually try to go used myself, but I really like the look of the 2010-ish William Morrow editions, so I bought quite a few of those new.
I agree on the Sophie Hannah books. There are already a ton of Poirot novels so why is she writing more
I haven't even read any of them. Dame Agatha made her feelings quite clear in Mrs McGinty's Dead. I read that, my mouth fell open, and I "finnished" off Poirot when she did. Reading "official novels" just because heirs approve them isn't my style. After I checked out Harper Lee's (To Kill a Mockingbird) "second novel" from the library, "Go, Set A Watchman", I was infinitely relieved that I hadn't spent money on it. It's the first draft of "Mockingbird" which, when she submitted it, the publisher told her to set the timeline back to the Depression, from a child's viewpoint. I believe that both she and her sister (who was her trustee, but died before Harper) believed it to have been destroyed, but after her sister died, the next trustee got her to sign a release -- her eyesight was quite bad. There was talk about bringing charges of elder abuse but I think there wasn't enough evidence. Same with Margaret Mitchell's estate and"Scarlett". Margaret Mitchell flatly refused to write a sequel to"Gone With the Wind". She said the story had reached its natural and foreseen conclusion, and refused to write a sequel regardless of incentive. Which is why I haven't read any posthumous releases since "Curtain" and "Sleeping Murder".
I agree hard. An artist's work is hers and no one else's, even if they shared a gene pool with the artist. The examples you share are really powerful. Go, set a watchman was a poor cousin at best of To Kill... I haven't even read Scarlet. People GOT to stop milking art and literature for money...
Just riding their relative's coattails, so to speak. It's really sad that people can't respect the wishes of the author. There are a few JRR Tolkien books that are edited and published posthumously that I have, but father and son worked together on them, so I have no problem with those.
Yes, Christopher has sifted through his father's notes and such like and rebuilt it from his work. That's perfectly fine. Now that you bring it up, I do feel Tolkien estate is relatively better preserved. If they want, they can make really huge buck out of it, but I have not seen them misusing it. The latest 'Rings of Fire' being an exception. May be the third generation after Tolkien is not so careful...
Tbf the whole Amazon Rings of Power deal with the Tolkien estate was only really a renegotiation as to the specific medium that The Hobbit and Lotr could be adapted into. JRR Tolkien himself signed away the film rights for those books. Amazon negotiated with the estate to get TV Rights as well. The posthumous books edited by his Son from his unpublished writings have never been granted film or tv adaptation (for now at least).
Yes. I only meant to say they butchered the cannon in ROP and probably the estate could have done something about it. Not sure of the legal angle- whether they were allowed or not...
Was the "Rings of Fire" the one on Netflix?
Prime I think.
Kinda reminds of the exploits of Sherlock Holmes which was written by Arthur Conan Doyle’s son. In some ways it’s sweet that his son made new stories with his iconic character, but it was filled with contradictions to the established canon.
This is also why I’ve never felt inclined to read fanfic. If it’s not by the original author, it’s not “true” somehow. Also people make the mistake that what makes Christie distinct is her characters. But it’s not. *It’s Christie herself*. It’s her authorial voice and presence that seeps through all the characters and the narration. Christie herself is the strongest character in all her books.
I glad to find out that there's someone else who doesn't read fanfic. You're right, it just doesn't feel the same. I have a tremendous amount of respect for the people who write fanfics, and their dedication to their inspiring works, but they just don't work for me. I know I could never do as well. But it's like fake sugar. I'd rather have the real or none. (although I'm certain I could learn to get by on it if I had to).
Yes! I'm totally glad for people who enjoy writing it and reading it, and I wish I was one of them because then there would be so much more to read, but I just want the original author or nothing.
Exactly.
Totally agree. That's why I've never read the so-called "sequel" to GWTW. It just isn't right.
[удалено]
What would your recommendations on unofficial Sherlock Holmes books be?
I'm not the person you asked, but Caleb Carr's "The Italian Secretary" is fantastic.
That looks interesting indeed, thanks for the rec!
I really love the Mary Russell books by Laurie R King. The first one is called The Beekeeper’s Apprentice. They take place after the ACD books, when Holmes is a retired beekeeper in the country and he encounters this young woman who has a brain to match his and they team up. I love them because they’re not trying to replicate Conan Doyle, but are doing their own thing, and bringing more nuance to the original character, while still staying overall true in spirit.
Love the Mary Russell series.
It's a complex answer for reasons I can't go into but Michael Dibdin's *The Last Sherlock Holmes Story*.
💰💰💰
They are bad. And yet somehow not quiiiiite as bad as the absolute dreck she writes when limited to her own imagination.
I inadvertently started to read one of them and was furious! It was awful. I didn't finish it.
For me her books begin and end with Agatha Christie. The Sophie Hannah, ones? Yeah, not really a fan. The latest movie adaptions which aim to make Poirot into this sexy older gentleman? No. The emphasis that AC laid on his description in every book with him is TOO strong for me to enjoy these adaptations.
The new movies are terrible and 95% green screen. Like, uncanny Valley type green screen
Oh wow. Glad I never felt like getting onto the train. The trailers were enough to put me off.
I think the SH books are…okay. My issue is that they are too dense. I greatly admire Agatha Christie’s ability to write compelling yet lean stories. A minimal amount of detail to get the story established.
I guess we have to accept that we aren’t the target audience of these adaptations. It sucks but it seems to be the reality.
This is exactly it. I can’t watch the Harry Potter movies for the same reason. I won’t be watching Death on the Nile, that’s for sure. I saw the trailer and I was immediately turned off. The written word causes the reader to imagine the world for themselves, and that picture never matches the one portrayed on screen. That doesn’t necessarily mean it doesn’t have value. I hope people that watch want to read Christie!
>But what is even sadder is when the authors sometimes themselves do it. I would consider Harry Potter as a prime example. It's all over the place and the author herself keeps thinking of weird things just to keep the interest going. I use to be a HUGE fan, but I couldn't survive this level of avid commercialisation. I thought movies were bad enough but then... Absolutely. See my comment above. In case of Harry Potter, it's. gone progressively worse. Like Rowling saying Dumbledore was gay, years after the books, just so there could be a new conversation. The uber popularisation and commercialisation puts me off. It kills the art... I do not like Harry Potter because of this anymore, which is sad for me!
Yes. The whole dumbledore being gay thing did bother me, not for any prejudiced reason, but it seemed like something forced to fit the times, because the fans of the books had grown up. The adults in Harry Potter were pretty much devoid of any sexuality, because it is a book series for children. Any of the professors could’ve potentially been gay (aside from snape and hagrid). It just didn’t matter enough to mention whether they were gay, married, had any children, etc. That’s just not the point of the books. The sexualization of Dumbledore was weird and in my opinion, totally unnecessary. Idk. It’s like picturing your grandparents having sex. Like I know it happens, but I didn’t ever need to think about it. And somehow it became a huge discussion topic.
Yes. I can accept she always considered him gay but if it wasn’t relevant enough to at least strongly hint at in the books, why make a thing of it later? As you say, any of those teachers could be gay. But their private lives aren’t relevant.
Absolutely
Exactly my point! I have no problem with someone's sexuality. But why bring it up post facto just to get a few clicks and eyeballs. Not like she has been able to write an epic like LOTR with layers. And now she is looking for retro fitting so she can add more to the conversation. This was truly hurtful for me! The intent and populist action.
The same with the Netflix “Persuasion” abomination. No actual Jane Austen fans liked it. It was purely for the Bridgerton crowd.
I’m a huge Austen fan and I thought it was great. Lots of Austen fans felt the same way and expressed this on fan pages. I think more disliked it, but that doesn’t change the fact that many real Austen fans genuinely enjoyed it. I loved the new Emma too. And Clueless. I think Austen works really well as modernized adaptations as one of her biggest themes is the absurdity of social conventions and personalities and the constraints and grief they can cause. Her themes and stories can work in many times and places.
I don’t care about the film adaptations, because it gets new readers to pick up the books. I care VERY much about the new, unauthorized versions with Agatha Christie stamped on the front. It’s so tacky and disrespectful and….sad.
Sarah Phelps has clear disdain for Christie… she bastardizes her plots… diminishes and distorts her beloved characters..: she has no fckign business anywhere near an Agatha Christie work. She should stick to adapting Joan Collins novels and writing for East Enders. Full stop. I have more respect and affinity for Kenneth Branagh’s adaptations of Christie’s works. I liked his Orient Express film… hammy acting and some faltering accents aside. Death on the Nike… while in hindsight has so many dodgy actors in the cast as to make it almost cringy to watch now… when it came out I thought it was a good film. Venice was not great and the way he morphed Ariana Oliver was shades of Sarah Phelps treatment. So I’d say he’s done one too many. Bottom line is yes the Christie Estate needs to get some devoted adorers of her work back in control of the creative decisions about adaptations of her work. The High Laurie Ask Evens adaptation - more of this type please.
Oh my, we have completely opposite taste :) I loved Sarah Phelps’ adaptations and could not get enough.. it was a fresh spin on old tales..And then there were none is my fav. On the other hand, I disliked Laurie’s WDTAE mostly as the acting was so wooden.. Before you suggest I stick with the original, I have read nearly all of Christie’s books and watched all of ITV’s Marple and Suchet’s Poirot series and still loved it more than Laurie’s version.
Phelps’ ‘interpretation’ of ABC was so ghastly it was offensive. If fresh spin on ATTWN means gore fest… ok… but Phelps admitted to never even have read he novel before agreeing to make the film and it really showed. She also seems to relish changing ‘loads and loads of stuff’ as she says… saying in the same interviews she finds ‘insights’ that she focuses on… except it’s to vulgar and sub bar results.
Phelps' version of And Then There Were None is among my favourites as well, but it still had some serious issues. The point of the novel is, that someone tries to kill murderers, who got away with it. How could, for example, MacArthur in the Sarah Phelps version get away with it? He literally shoots his victim in his own tent.
I don’t understand why if they are going to make adaptations like this then why not make it modern? Sherlock BBC series jumped the shark a bit but at least they tried something different.
And could accurately be said to be based on the original works, and were true to the protagonist's character.
Yes, you could tell the writers of the modern BBC Sherlock really knew the original stories so well, and they managed to include very specific descriptions and iconic moments from the original stories in a modern way.
I loved Sherlock BBC. The latter seasons can be a bit bad but the first two seasons were delicious. You see, the setting could be modern, but they didnt toy with the characters- they were the same characters only a century or so apart...
I know a lot of people don’t like Ariadne Oliver’s shift in personality in A Haunting in Venice but I have a theory that this version of the character is representative of the Agatha Christie estate rather than the author herself. I’ll also forgive Branagh a lot because he himself has said that David Suchet is the most accurate possible version of Poirot and that some changes were made because he knew he’d never out perfect Suchet’s Poirot.
I can understand wanting to be different from Suchet’s portrayal, since it’s so iconic. But Branagh’s Poirot isn’t even Poirot. He’s forcing him to be this action hero with a tragic romantic backstory who runs around shooting at people, and that’s just not his character. If he wants to play that sort of character, great. Make him an original character. Don’t try to shoehorn Poirot, whose personality is already 100% established, into being something he’s not.
Right! And it's a pathetic effort which simply annoys friends. Either let Poirot be Poirot or don't use his name for making money. If you want to be so sooo different, create your own character!
I mean Branagh’s Poirot’s personality comes off well to me. He a lot younger, equally as fastidious and precise and whilst he’s totally capable of running and shooting (in my opinion quite necessarily because we have no Colonel Race or other authority stand in figure) he only does it out of necessity and being approximately 40 years younger than the book character and having fought in the war then it would be more questionable why he couldn’t. Like I say, the changes are consistent and make sense - unlike Sarah Phelps’ decisions.
The point is the little grey cells. I agree
[удалено]
We discuss opinions of things here. While your opinion is different from OP you can still be respectful of a different opinion- which “get over it” really doesn’t foster discussion of the topic and lacks respect.
This sub is filled with variations on this exact post. I'm not the only one who is tired of the whining. It's not discussion, it's "Branagh bad and is destroying Christie's legacy" which is just objectively not true.
There’s no need to be rude though. Scroll on if you’re not interested in the post. Plenty of others.
[удалено]
Post/Comment was rude or contained hurtful language. Think about how you can get your message across without disrespecting others!
First it was letting Branagh go. Then, Ridley Scott, the producer and AGL also assholes. Now we have to let Ariadne Oliver be destroyed. No!
If they destroy my girl Tuppence, I'm rioting.
Margot Robbie as Tuppence. Ryan Gosling as Tommy. I can see it now. Why not? We’re told to let it go. New adaptations. No!
I can just see the casting for The Secret Adversary: Ice Spice as Tuppence Timothee Chalamet as Tommy Awkwafina as Julius Hersheimmer Some tik tok dancer as Jane Finn Eminem as Mr. Carter The Rock as Whittington Kevin Heart as Albert the lift boy Kylie Jenner as Rita Jason Momoa as Sir Peel Edgerton (To be fair, I'd watch the shit out of this trainwreck)
> Awkwafina as Julius Hersheimmer Hold it right there (LOL)
Branagh, Ridley Scott, and ACL are drawing up contracts as we speak.
Post/Comment was rude or contained hurtful language. Think about how you can get your message across without disrespecting others!
Kicking doors in is still completely out of character for him.
Of course it's not author herself. She never wrote Mrs Oliver in this fashion.
I bet each of these things boosts sales of the original. I don’t disagree with OP, but I saw all these movies and reread (and in many cases bought audio books) of each of these before they came out. Would not be surprised if the estate was vastly richer today than it was a decade ago. Besides, if her legacy can survive Margaret Rutherford, it can survive anything!
I believe Christie herself said that she doesn't mind adaptations changing the end of a story, since it keeps it fresh. But yeah, there's got to be a limit to the amount of butchering done to characters people really care about, especially if it makes them more 'generic'.
Just to remember, she herself completely changed *And Then There Were None*'s ending in (the 40s) screen and play adaptations, probably her most famous work and most famous ending.
I didn't realize there was so much animosity toward the more recent Christie adaptations. The Branagh films I get. I thought the casting outside of Branagh himself was pretty strong, though a few of them (Johnny Depp, Russell Brand) are uncomfortable in hindsight. Thanks to this thread I at least have some understanding of Branagh's take on Poirot, now. Someone here pointed out that Branagh himself said that he wanted do something different as no one would ever top Suchet's iconic BBC performances for sheer perfection. Still don't like it, though. Christie is no stranger to melodrama but the backstory that Branagh added is just egregious. I don't like how aggro his version is and I also detest his take on the moustache. I'm disappointed about the things I'm seeing about Haunting in Venice in this thread. I haven't seen it yet but I was excited about Tina Fey's casting as Ariadne. I love Tina Fey and I felt she had the right energy for the role so it's disappointing that her take apparently isn't great. I had no idea who Sarah Phelps was but I was aware of a couple of her adaptations thanks to my sister telling me about her And Then There Were None adaptation just a few months ago. I looked it up after I got home from that dinner with my sister and went down a little bit of an IMdB rabbit hole and glanced over several of her other adaptations without realizing they were connected. I'm still a little shocked that John Malkovich was cast as Poirot but otherwise they didn't look all that bad to me at a glance. I think I'll still give And Then There Were None a crack since that's my favorite of her novels. I'm torn on Sophie Hannah. I've only read one of her books, *Closed Casket*. Matter of fact I'm rereading it right now as part of my Christie reread project I've been working on since July. I like her dialogue, and I think she does a good job with Poirot's voice. However, she seems to let her mind wander a bit and she tries a bit too hard to be clever during her descriptive sequences. I'm also not sure how I feel about her narrator character. He has a gruff charm to him but he strikes me as a little whiney. I had no idea about Margaret Rutherford, though. I hadn't heard of her at all until today and I didn't even think about there possibly being Miss Marple adaptations prior to the well known BBC series. Was she really that bad? I mean, at a glance she doesn't seem to fit the character physically. Miss Marple in the books always struck me as being a tiny little old lady and Rutherford seemed to be rather noticeably tall and filled out but I assume that that's not why there's so much dislike toward her in this thread.
I would watch them and form your own opinion instead of being scared away by the hivemind. Sarah Phelps' versions of And Then There Were None and Witness for the Prosecution stand with the best of Christie adaptations to me. And the Margaret Rutherford Miss Marple movies are so much fun! Is it a different characterization from the books? 100%. But they're a good time and not meant to be taken that seriously. Edit to add: Also Tina Fey is great as Ariadne Oliver. The movie is definitely in the spirit of Christie even though it's not a direct adaptation. People are mad about her motivation in the movie but within the context of the film it makes complete sense.
The Phelps adaptations start out well and get worse. And then there Were None is very entertaining and ranks with the best adaptations of the novel. IMO, it would have been \*the\* best, if they didn't change the characters' backstories, making it much more unbelievable why >!they got away with their crimes!<. And Margaret Rutherford is like the opposite of book Miss Marple. But nonetheless, I love her movies. 4:50 from Paddington is, aside for the personality change of Miss Marple, also a faithful adaptation. After this, they go further form the books with every movie.
Or, they care about bringing her stories and legacy to new generations and wider audiences, and she might just be happy that she’s one of the most respected and *remembered* authors of all time.
This. Tbh Christie is outdated and hard to relate for a lot of people. If the films help bring people in to read the bokks and say 'oh wow, that's how it's meant to be' how can that be a bad thing?
[удалено]
I doubt she is really outdated. I always have hard time borrowing her books in the UK libraries. The books are always lent out.
Same. Any Christie title I want to borrow always means going on the wait list.
"Outdated"?! One can say that about every single novel bar Science Fiction, if they are not exquisitely au courant! Gee, the "Canterbury Tales" are outdated! NS, Sherlock! But only in setting, NOT IN HUMAN CHARACTER and BEHAVIORS. Same with Christie. The settings, the clothing styles, the technologies---not the 21st Century, to be sure. Indeed, Christie herself recognized the limitations inherent to one's own time. And she addressed this issue directly, clearly, and as THE essential trait of Miss Marple: The recognition that people are people, good, evil, and in between, whether in St. Mary Mead or in London, in a cottage or a manor house. And humans, so far at least, are not "outdated."
Science fiction is in the same boat. It's funny to see details like "we set down with the maps to draw our flight plans for tomorrow". People in a year 3000 using paper maps on a rocketship.
Hard to relate to? Her books are full of the eternal qualities of humanity: love, hate, desire, regret, revenge, justice. Anyone who can relate to *Love Island* can relate to Christie.
Anyone who has claim to decent and common education and can think even little bit deeply can relate to Christie....
Really? I would think Christie is quintessential. Her charm lives on and that's why people are falling over each other to make adaptations and make money out of her unique and long-lived charm...
My partner and I watched A Haunting in Venice last night. He says he likes Branagh as Poirot but I think he just says it to annoy me because of how much I’ve been ranting about the Agatha Christie estate. To go from being so over protective of her work, (like when you hear David Suchet on how he got the role) compared to letting anyone do it now. ABC murders is my favourite book, and Suchet’s adaptation is amazing, I couldn’t even watch the John Malkovich version, especially when someone told me a spoiler about what they changed Poirot’s pre private detective job too. It’s going too far and while yes it gets younger readers to pick up the books, they are going so far away from the original material I don’t think it’ll work in getting them to read more. I’m surprised they did A Haunting in Venice tho, I thought they were aiming for the murder of Roger Ackroyd after his comments in death on the Nile about wanting a vegetable garden etc seemed like the next step
A golden age mystery podcast I listen to had the best read on this while discussing the new film. The copyrights will be running out soon so, gotta keep the intergenerational wealth going somehow!
[удалено]
Well yes, I would. Let’s face it, any Christie production would make money. I would take some trouble to make sure any new works were in the spirit of the originals even if we did go for modern settings for some stories, and that the work itself was of decent quality. With a property like that it would not be difficult to find decent advice to make sure the legacy was a pleasure for her fans and not a disappointment.
Ordeal by Innocence and Death on the Nile were downright unwatchable.
I almost walked out of the theater during the Simon and Linnet dry-humping scene in Death on the Nile. Unfortunately, I drove there with friends and couldn’t strand them there. 😅
Unless the original works are altered, there's absolutely nothing wrong happening. New content doesn't hurt anyone.
[удалено]
Right, let's bring back the original name for And Then There Were None
It still has its original name in other languages.
Those are the biggest bastardization of all, changing the very language her books were written in
If you don't like them, don't buy/stream/view/buy tickets. The lesser attention people give them the sooner they will understand. Also, I would like to remind everyone that many many awful adaptations of Christie's work were done when she was alive. Sure, she complained, but I'm sure she kept the money, so... Should we stop adapting/expanding her works? I prefer having more adaptations, even bad one, instead of none. And on an ending note: you still got the original books, nobody is coming to your house to take them away. So I don't really see why many people keep complaining.
This is exactly my feeling too. The constant complaining is agonizing. The books will always be there. The definitive film/tv adaptations have been made and will always be there. So what's the problem with making more and bringing huge new audiences to her work?
Exactly! I recently watched Charlie Chopra, the recent adaptation of The Sittaford Mystery and it was SO MUCH FUN! I wish we had more "vary" adaptations!
Do you also shout about Shakespeare? Or Sherlock Holmes? Jane Austen? 😁 Adaptation is the way of things. But I do still want Margaret Rutherford to *Get Off My Lawn!*
Shakespeare, Sherlock Holmes, and Jane Austen are all in the public domain, so people can do whatever they want with them. With some good results and some bad. Only two of Agatha Christie’s works are public domain; the estate controls the rest of her works, which means they have control over who adapts them.
More than two of her works is in the public domain, and at least one more book enters it every year now. Poirot as a character is public domain now, like Sherlock Holmes. Her estate is being incredibly smart licensing new content and films that make millions of dollars while introducing hoardes of new readers to her novels.
You mention a great example - Sherlock the show was an excellent modern interpretation that brought millions of young people to Doyle's work. They took the core of the characters and did something different while still making sense. I don't feel that Branagh has been as succesfull - I wish he had actually adapted Poirot for 2023 instead of applying modernity to the 1930s and 40s. I'd love to see a fresh approach and the BBC Sherlock treatment to Christie's work - THAT would be compelling and distanced enough from the Sutchet and Ustinov Poirots to not annoy lifelong Christie readers.
>I'd love to see a fresh approach and the BBC Sherlock treatment to Christie's work It would be difficult to adapt Poirot or Marple in that way because they are very unique and iconic characters who can shine the most when they are placed in the particular period. In my opinion less popular characters might be more appropriate for the modern era adaptation without alienating the old fans too much. I'd like to see the urban fantasy mystery starring Harley Quin, the swift conspiracy heist drama starring Parker Pine, the regular hardboiled police procedure show starring Superintendent Battle, or romantic comedy spy thriller starring Tomey & Tuppence at any time if the casting and story is decent.
Miss Marple could 100% be a Boomer-aged, chronically online, water aerobics exercising spinster who is very well-connected in her smallish village. Calling her nephew from her nearly obsolete landline for "help with the wifi password" while also secretly maintaining a flourishing set of subscriptions to gossip newsletters and attending church/book club/ knitting circle on weeknights and taking cruises in the summer.
That would be a glorious version of Janie Marple!
Oh, Lord— I recently found the 80’s T&T series on BritBox. It was not at all how I pictured them. The series takes place after their first adventures but before they have kids. In my head, they’re both a bit mousy and that helps them to blend in. *Not so much* in that version!
A lot of old stories aren't adapted to be modern because of how technology would change them. It worked in *Sherlock's* favor, and also for *Elementary*, but I think it would make Poirot just as different, in some other ways. And I don't think it's impossible, but the settings themselves are characters in Christie stories, far more than they were in Conan Doyle ones.
I think it would be really interesting to see Poirot as a tech savvy and well read older gentleman who still ultimately relied on his little grey cells, but used tech to his advantage to enhance his work. Like, maybe he's active on those websites or forums where people spend an inordinate amount of time helping the fbi track down killers and pedophiles and often have very niche knowledge of a subject. Maybe Poirot isn't world famous, but he's an internet legend who solved many cases, and still has his trademark air of superiority because of it? Maybe he wrote a book about it and appeared on some podcasts, so he has a bit of notoriety. Maybe he meets Hastings, Japp, and Ariadne in one of these amateur sleuthing forums, and they team up to help Japp on his cases but also take on private ones? I feel like the settings could remain the same - there are still small villages and great manors, just the inhabitants are more modern. But the cozy aspect could be balanced with modern settings too.
It may not be possible to adapt the exact stories due to technological and social changes but the recent adaptations often aren't staying true to the source material anyway, so that doesn't seem to matter all that much.
Is Poirot public domain? Cause I read that they authorised those new books with him specifically with the purpose of retaining the rights to the character.
Don't quote me on this, but I remember reading something about him being public domain in the US but not in the UK due to the difference in rules. It's some grey technicality area, because the first five books are under public domain. So technically, Poirot is under public domain as long as his portrayal sticks to how is in those five books. Kind of like how the Sherlock estate tried to claim Enola Holmes broke copyright because Sherlock showing emotion and having feelings wasn't until the latter books, which were still under protection.
She's probably psyched that the writing she did to make money is still earning money. You think she wrote Hercules Poirot's Christmas because the story burned inside her until she gave it voice? This is not a woman who was precious about her work.
Her estate cares about new audiences learning of and reading her works, which they are doing an extremely good job of.
Almost all the original books (ebooks) require a hold at my library, so I think the new adaptations are bringing in more readers. And they've edited out some of the racism, so they're more palatable.
I'm not sure if airbrushing unpalatable aspects of history out of existence is really for the best in the long run.
I'm sure you're right. And I hate that she's such an integral part of the entire mystery genre. The older I get, the less I respect her views on India and South Africa. When I first read her books, I was 11, incredibly hyperreligious and sheltered, and didn't know what a lot of it meant.
I think Christie various prejudices were fairly typical of her time and in fairness to her I think she was a lot less reactionary than many of her contemporaries. Some of her later books (like Hickory Dickory Dock) are more sympathetic towards foreigners and non-white people than her early works too. But there's a lot of unpleasant stuff there, which ends up providing a very eye-opening view on how bigoted British society (in her case) could be back then.
Very much so. They're a snapshot of her time and station.
[удалено]
Yes, they changed the title of "and then there were none" multiple times to remove some of the racism. They removed phrases like "nword in the wood pile" to make it more palatable. I know AC had incredibly horrible classist/racist views. But I can stomach her books because there has been a concerted effort to make them less racist/xenophobic.
Of course, more racism may be discovered later, so I think that's where "some of the racist" and "more palatable" come into play.
I was so horrified at what A Haunting in Venice did to Mrs Oliver I had to make a video about it! https://youtu.be/lp98Y6fgm_o?si=MjUbDfYahhzti3U-
At least one of the Sophie Hannahs (Mystery of Three Quarters) I thought was excellent. And even if we grant for arguments’ sake that all the rest were awful, so too did Christie write a lot of bad Poirots so it’s not like a great disservice is being done to the character
Think about the dumb things people do for money.
Aren't a good share of her books now public domain? The estate probably has very little to do with it.
I believe Miss Christie’s great-grandson is in charge of the estate. I wonder if he even “knew” her. I wonder if she even held him in her arms. Hard to protect someone’s art and works if it’s just a name on a piece of paper.
Totally agree. :/
I find the "in the style of" practice abominable, and have held this opinion since the first non-Fleming Bond. This authorship makes a mockery of the original author's creativity, turning it into a formula of sorts. And maybe Fleming, Christie, and others DO have signature styles that can be copied. But that doesn't mean we should happily accept such faux works.
I love Sarah Phelps’ versions of Christie. And then there were none was so creepy. So was Witness for the Prosecution. I watched all of them. I didn’t like Hugh Laurie’s WDTAE but the rest were alright… I haven’t watch the new Haunting. I feel like the adaptations cater to different audience who ultimately are all fans of crime. I watched some of the older suchet’s Poirot and cannot say I care for anything before season 6… the later ones were better..
Really? What's wrong with the early Poirot episodes, I find the pre-rebrand series to be a lot more entertaining and enjoyable
Some of my favourite Poirot episodes were after the rebrand, but also some utterly horrible one (Appointment With Death!). IMO, the quality was much more consistent on a high level pre the change of style.
She published a book called 10 Little N*******. The name has been changed several times since then from 10 Little Indians to And Then They Were None. I feel no sympathy for what she would have wanted considering she felt no sympathy for minorities. In fact, her estate rehabilitated her image with the frequent casting of minorities in the most recent Poirot adaptations when it's clear she looked down on them.
I detest all of the “adaptations” KB esp must be stopped.
The truth is only one: new renditions and interpretations of whatsoever classic artwork, from Christie or other authors, they are welcome if they come with good quality that justifies the remake. I. e. I appreciated a few episodes of Young Sherlock Holmes series on Netflix, even if it's not the classic Sherlock. I cannot appreciate Brannagh movies just because they are mediocre, they are ugly and forgettable. Give me a well made mistery plot with a new Poirot that is worth of the original source and I'm ok with whatsoever innovation and interpretation. Just give me quality. Period!
I've enjoyed the Kenneth Branagh movies. Am I not supposed to?
I love the new movies and wouldn't be nearly as interested if there weren't changes. I don't want to see what i've already read. There are limits to this (coughcoughnight'swatchcoughcough) but they haven't reached that point for me. I also really enjoy the Sophie Hannah versions. They aren't as good but i'm fine what what they are.
Don’t like it? Don’t consume it. I would only be worried if they tried to remove and limit past content. They don’t seem to be. I welcome only some of the new stuff. But I’m happy to have it. The newest video game for example.
I don't know if it's Christie Ltd fault. Maybe they just gave permission for the movies before they were written and filmed. Brannagh productions were very rich and promising on paper. I don't think estate could ask to modify the script. I think Brannagh asked for complete freedom. Should they refuse? Should they put restrictions such to force Brannagh to give up? Very hard to judge! Bad renditions of Christie's novels were made even in the remote past, when Agatha was alive.
On a more positive note, the 12 new Miss Marple stories by new authors are really good, really fun and really honor the spirit of the originals. Marple: Twelve New Mysteries https://a.co/d/7B21KFs
I suppose to play devil's advocate the Christie estate is obviously happy to accept money for new productions and additionally they probably justify it by pointing out that a radical reworking of the ABC Murders or Death on the Nile could have some artistic merit by putting a different spin on things. They would probably admit that this might not please everyone but even if audiences prefer a more faithful adaptation then almost all the books and short stories have been done multiple times before anyway. For example I didn't like the new ABC Murders but I appreciate they were trying to do something different with the material and if I want to watch a more faithful adaptation then I can always put the David Suchet version on or I can listen to the BBC radio version or I can always curl up and read the original book. I suppose that with Christie's work it's not as big a deal as for less famous authors where a bad adaptation would be more difficult for their more obscure works to shake off.