Poldark: Now, Then, and Before (the Books, the Original Series, and the Remake)

[LJones41]

If Francis' character was "sacrificed" in this new version, it was certainly "sacrificed" in the 1975 series.  The producers of the series from the 70s really mishandled his story arc.  On the other hand, I am not impressed how  Debbie Horsfield handled the Keren Daniels character in this new version.

 

As for Ross as a "heroic" figure, I never bought it.  No one is that perfect.  Although both the novels and the television series went out of their way to make Demelza as ideal as possible.  I heard rumors that some fans are demanding that the series be cancelled following Episode 8 of this new season.  Considering there were wide-range consequences of what happened . . . right up to the last novel, I hope that this series is not prematurely cancelled.

[nodorothyparker]

I wasn't wild about the handling of Keren either, but that's yet another case where shortchanging all the characters and stories going on around Ross and Demelza left the series with only time to paint characters like Keren in the very broadest strokes.  Book Keren manages to invoke a fair amount of sympathy from me despite some of her frankly dumb choices because you can see where she's coming from.  She has no family, no money, nothing to draw on, and she's fast aging out of being the fresh-faced ingenue role of the traveling acting troupe.  She's clear eyed enough to see that stories like hers don't end well, and there's Mark Daniel offering what looks like a respectable life.  So she jumps on it, only to have buyer's remorse after seeing how Mark is content to eek along and how Demelza married up and thinking maybe she too should have aimed a little higher.  None of that made it into the show.  

I'm never really clear what she hopes the long term end result of her affair with Dwight will be since she is still a married woman, but I'm pretty sure it wasn't for her to be killed and for everyone to shrug with a "Oh well, she was a whore.  Let's make sure poor Mark doesn't have to suffer any nasty consequences from breaking her neck in a conveniently invented struggle so Ross doesn't have to look like he was aiding and abetting murder."

Of course people are demanding the series be cancelled over something they don't like because of course they are.  I get being upset, but seriously?  They've already moved on and are shooting the third season.

[Clawdette]

Is the uproar coming primarily from folks who haven't read the source material?  Or, is it precipitated by the comments from Poldark folks that the sex was consensual while some folks viewed its depiction otherwise?

I'm mystified if it's the former and understand the latter but calling for cancellation seems a bit much.

[NumberCruncher]

11 hours ago, Clawdette said:

Is the uproar coming primarily from folks who haven't read the source material?  Or, is it precipitated by the comments from Poldark folks that the sex was consensual while some folks viewed its depiction otherwise?

I'm mystified if it's the former and understand the latter but calling for cancellation seems a bit much.

I think it's more of the former.  Most I've seen the viewers expecting to see an 18th century world told through 21st century eyes.  Their argument is that we should no longer be subject to rape-y TV tropes in 2016--especially ones where women are forced into sex only to wake up happy it happened.  Personally I would understand their argument a lot more if the show was a contemporary drama but it just isn't.  This show reflects a time period where women weren't treated equally--especially where sex was concerned.  While I thought the Ross/Elizabeth scene was quite uncomfortable to watch it wasn't particularly violent or offensive when compared to a show like Outlander (which reflects a time period not much before Poldark's).  That show seems to relish rape and torture porn but I digress....

All in all, the important thing is that I don't think the show meant for the audience to think was Ross did was right or acceptable.  I think the non-book-reading audience was shocked that the character they thought was so heroic turns out to have some very dark, deep flaws and the show chose to expose them in a way that offended their 21st century sensibilities.

Edited October 29, 2016 by NumberCruncher

[DHDancer]

Hmm, so I didn't find "the scene" to be particularly disturbing: I've seen much much worse over my 50+ years.   Yes, I've read the books (again over the past week or so - up to book 5 right now) and yes I knew to expect it but frankly I found the book description much more disturbing because it did leave most of it up to the imagination.

Also, the TV scene was very clearly set up to be consensual IMO: she lets him into the room, even thought it's night, noone else is around yet apparently she's not scared (really?) then doesn't cover herself up with the dressing gown so her barely covered breasts are quite obvious, gets in his face a couple of times, and yes, she does thrash about a little bit when the inevitable happens (along with a "you wouldn't DARE!) but her hand actions etc smack of lady doth protesting too much.  Sigh.  I absolutely don't condone Ross's actions but as depicted I don't think it's worthy of all the fuss.  And I do think this adds another dimension to Ross, even if it's pretty despicable.

What I did LOVE was Demelza laying him out with an almight whack to the face!  That was a fun addition!!  What crap about having no choice -- I'd have belted him too!!

I do think we have to be extremely careful about trying to overlay 21st century sensibilities: maybe these programs should carry a reminder at the beginning/end that the world was a very different place back then.  Hell, even when Graham wrote the books in the late 40s/50s I think men could still insist on conjugal rights and legally rape their wives (can't be bothered to look it up and verify so correct me if I'm wrong).

[Ceindreadh]

3 hours ago, DHDancer said:

 

Also, the TV scene was very clearly set up to be consensual IMO: she lets him into the room, even thought it's night, noone else is around yet apparently she's not scared (really?) then doesn't cover herself up with the dressing gown so her barely covered breasts are quite obvious, gets in his face a couple of times, and yes, she does thrash about a little bit when the inevitable happens (along with a "you wouldn't DARE!) but her hand actions etc smack of lady doth protesting too much.  Sigh.  I absolutely don't condone Ross's actions but as depicted I don't think it's worthy of all the fuss.  And I do think this adds another dimension to Ross, even if it's pretty despicable.

 

 

Whatever about his actions the night before, the way he ran off the next morning, that was even more despicable.  I get it that he's probably just realised how badly he screwed up, but he acted like he couldn't bear to be in the same room as Elizabeth.  I actually felt sorry for Elizabeth at that point.

 

One thing that annoys and puzzles me a little is the way that they change up little things from the book for no apparent reason.

For instance, that night is supposed to take place the week before Elizabeth and George's wedding (later postponed by a month) but in the show the wedding is supposed to be a month away already. 

And then there's the timing of Ross's buying of Geoffrey Charles's share of the mine.  In the book it was after Caroline had anonymously bailed him out, and his situation was less dire than it had been, that he then decided to pay forward his good fortune by helping out Elizabeth.  Whereas now we have it that even though he had some money to reduce his own debt and shorten his likely time in debtors prison, he still decided to put Elizabeth and Geoffrey Charles before Demelza and Jeremy and it was only pure luck that Caroline saved his neck. 

[nodorothyparker]

6 hours ago, NumberCruncher said:

I think it's more of the former.  Most I've seen the viewers expecting to see an 18th century world told through 21st century eyes.  Their argument is that we should no longer be subject to rape-y TV tropes in 2016--especially ones where women are forced into sex only to wake up happy it happened.  Personally I would understand their argument a lot more if the show was a contemporary drama but it just isn't.  This show reflects a time period where women weren't treated equally--especially where sex was concerned.  While I thought the Ross/Elizabeth scene was quite uncomfortable to watch it wasn't particularly violent or offensive when compared to a show like Outlander (which reflects a time period much before Poldark's).  That show seems to relish rape and torture porn but I digress....

All in all, the important thing is that I don't think the show meant for the audience to think was Ross did was right or acceptable.  I think the non-book-reading audience was shocked that the character they thought was so heroic turns out to have some very dark, deep flaws and the show chose to expose them in a way that offended their 21st century sensibilities.

 Pretty much, yeah.  A lot of what I've seen is either people who never read the books and didn't know it was coming and see Ross as their romantic hero and thus, OUTRAGE that 18th century characters written by a pre-feminist man might have 18th century sensibilities.  Or people who did know but assumed that surely the show would "fix" it before they had to see it, a notion that wasn't helped at all by both actors giving interviews where they acknowledged that yes, the source material has this problematic plot coming up but insisted that they had retooled it and it would be fine.  That group, from what I've seen elsewhere, is now feeling particularly betrayed by the actors, by Horsfield, by everybody involved at every level as perpetuating rape culture.  Which on a basic level I get.  The scene is uncomfortable to watch and yeah, I too have to wonder just what the actors were thinking in some of the interviews they gave in much the same way I wondered WTH the Game of Thrones actors and director were thinking at the height of Septgate when they continued to insist that they had shot a consensual sex scene that didn't exactly come across that way onscreen. (Part of the ire there was also from book purists who knew that the scene in the books, as squicky as it was, reads pretty consensual.)

I'm generally pretty accepting or at least bigger picture thinking in historical fiction than I likely would be in contemporary stories.  I'm reading a book about the Tudors right now and it would be highly jarring to find Henry VIII and Anne Boleyn behaving like a modern married couple, for example.  I can think that attitudes or events portrayed are shitty while understanding that an 18th century character only knows what an 18th century character would know and that their beliefs and sensibilities are unlikely to match mine in a number of areas.  It's a subject that actually does get discussed A LOT on Outlander boards because of both the stuff that's already been shown and the reality that as that show moves into season 3 there's even more problematic stuff coming up from the books that the show will be expected to soften or fix.

[magdalene]

If you were unfamiliar with the source material and/ or the old show and if you bought into the Ross/Demelza romance hook, line and sinker the Ross/Elizabeth sex would of course be very awful.  I remember as a child watching the old show I felt terrible for Demelza because Ross cheated on her.  I had little sympathy for Elizabeth who I thought was a cold fish, and even less sympathy for Ross. 

Especially if one is watching this like a romance - cheating being one of the big no-no's in the genre.  And the whole dubious consent factor of the sex makes it all extra squicky. 

Luckily for me I never held Ross Poldark on a pedestal - because he sure would have fallen off it then.  I continued to love Demelza but I never shipped Ross and Demelza again.  I transferred my shipping onto Dwight/Caroline, ha, ha.

[nodorothyparker]

I enjoy both book and show versions of the early days of Ross and Demelza's relationship.  It does very nicely capture the intense feeling, the giddiness, the overawing sense of contentment in that other person when the love is still new.  But I've also lived long enough and been married long enough to know that those things don't remain static as life and time happen, even without an inappropriate obsession over a first love.  I think the middle books actually do a fairly decent job of capturing the changing nature of a long relationship as well, but it's not a fairy tale ending.

[magdalene]

Considering how much US pace viewers dislike Ross already right now I am wondering how much they are going to dislike him once he forces himself on Elizabeth and cheats on Demelza? 

[Llywela]

Hmm. Episode nine, for me, really drove home the difficulty of adapting a highly internal character like Elizabeth for the screen - Horsfield really tied herself in knots trying to vocalise Elizabeth's thought process in this episode, having to resort to using Aunt Agatha as her sounding board and confidant, which made for some very clunky dialogue, as well as highly awkward and unlikely characterisation for Agatha, who was so fond of Demelza in the books.

This show gives me such inner conflict, because there's some great acting and some truly beautiful scenes - Eleanor Tomlinson shone in this episode, Demelza's pain was so raw. But then on the other hand, this adaptation strips out so much of the subtlety and nuance from the source material, it's almost painful to watch at times - Horsfield just can't seem to stop herself over-egging the pudding, and so many of the changes she makes aren't necessary. Like having George order his sidekick Tankard to ravish Demelza at the Bodrugan party. So very unnecessary. George is the bad guy, we get the point already! And in previous episodes, she switched things around so that Ross gives Elizabeth the £600 before Caroline anonymously buys his debt, instead of after - done to reinforce Ross's arc for the season, which has been about deconstructing his hero status by showing him spiralling down to rock bottom, but that same spiral happened in the books without such exaggeration and over-inflation of his flaws being necessary. In season one all of Francis's flaws were exaggerated and his good points stripped away. And I could o on. This exaggeration and loss of subtlety has been a feature of the show from the start, and it is such a shame, because if it were allowed to retain the nuance of the novels, it would make for a much stronger and more cohesive narrative. As it is, I find the storytelling and characterisation really uneven, and it's so frustrating because I know they don't need to be!

[LiveenLetLive]

I'm sure that Horsfield thought that changing the whole debt thing is somehow demonstrating Ross's ongoing feelings for Elizabeth so when he ravishes her we can forgive him? LOL--yeah, I am reaching here. I can't wait until the American pace viewers get a load of Ross leaving his wife in the middle of the night to go "talk" Elizabeth out of marrying George, and oh, just coincidentally forcing himself on her (I won't lie and say that seeing Turner at the foot of my bed removing his clothes wouldn't make me compliant!) 

[DHDancer]

Llywela, you sum up my frustrations with this version very well.  I found this latest episode (9) a bit of a travesty in all honesty.  I really had a hard time with all the overt angst going on.  It felt like the proverbial sledge hammer and very 21st C again.  Sigh.  I did think some of the Elizabeth stuff was interesting: having her stare out the window waiting for Ross etc whereas the book (in my interpretation) doesn't really have her putting things on hold in anticipation that Ross is going to throw over Demelza for her. 

[nodorothyparker]

My impression for the entire next book or so afterward was that Elizabeth did NOT want to see Ross or have anything to do with him well up to the point where they finally meet again and clear the air about that particular night and the resulting Valentine.  She's certainly cold toward any mention of Ross, which George initially reads as some sort of loyalty to him.

[nodorothyparker]

I hadn't had a chance to make it through the entire episode before now.  While I share a lot of the same concerns, weirdly, some of this actually worked for me.  You don't really get into Elizabeth's head much in the books between That Night and her wedding, so a lot is left up to conjecture.  Her sitting passively waiting and staring out the window for Ross before moving on with George almost out of spite sort of worked for who the character is.  It was also a nice contrast to the much more active Demelza, who was doing plenty of storming to match all the long shots of her staring out at the rolling waves.   I did get a kick out of how utterly taken aback every last one of them was when she stopped doing all the dozens of things she probably does daily and took to her bed, while no one seemed the least bit surprised that poor frail Elizabeth was fainting under the apparent strain of her engagement and had also become bedridden. 

Yeah, suddenly Agatha calling Demelza "his scullery maid" after years of having been supportive was jarring and much of what she was saying made for clunky dialogue that felt completely out of character.  Elizabeth might have been better off doing some more primping and talking to herself in the mirror than what we got.

[Dirndl]

Reading these comments makes me think that it's better that I haven't read the books. I really enjoy the show and have (almost) nothing to criticize.

Okay with one exception: Elizabeth is the character I find to be really boring and I'm not interested in her at all. If I didn't watch the show live I would ffw all of her scenes.

Demelza is great and I cheered her on in this last episode when she let Ross have it. He is such an a...hole right now and I hope she lets him suffer. I can't believe that he hasn't apologized once! Suggesting that Demelza should just let it play out took the cake. Right now I would totally root for a show called "Demelza".

[Clawdette]

I debated reading, too, but am glad I gave in.  I have read through books five & six which they are filming now.  For me, reading the books has greatly enhanced my viewing experience because I know the backstories that are being rushed through on screen.  As with the case with Outlander and Game of Thrones, many folks are displeased with the books-to-film translation.  Sure, I'd make some changes but I'm only one of many opinions on how things should be done.  On the whole, I'm pleased.

[Llywela]

1 hour ago, Dirndl said:

Reading these comments makes me think that it's better that I haven't read the books. I really enjoy the show and have (almost) nothing to criticize.

I sometimes wonder if I'd be better off if I didn't know the books - but then I remember that I barely got halfway through season 1 before my misgivings about the uneven and compressed nature of the narrative (as well as, admittedly, the many differences between this and the previous adaptation) compelled me to turn to the books to find out what the story was originally meant to look like. So I can't claim to have been better off not knowing - I'm just better able to analyse the things that bothered me about this adaptation now (and the other one, for that matter), because I now have that baseline for comparison. And of course a TV adaptation is always going to have to make compromises to translate a novel into a visual format, and novels that are long and contain a lot of intense internal dialogue are always going to be a challenge to adapt. But I'm not convinced all the choices made for this adaptation have been for the best, even allowing for that - just as not all the choices made for the last adaptation were for the best. I guess my perfect adaptation of this story has yet to be made! Ideally, it would have more episodes per book right from the start (as well as a bit more faith in the source material)...

[nodorothyparker]

I actually don't hate this adaption as much as I'm sometimes frustrated by it.  I don't always understand some of the story choices or what they chose to compress or leave out entirely.  But that's going to be true with almost any book to film effort.   It brings the pretty and it's a story I enjoy, so for all my grousing I'm mostly good.

[Llywela]

9 minutes ago, nodorothyparker said:

I actually don't hate this adaption as much as I'm sometimes frustrated by it.  I don't always understand some of the story choices or what they chose to compress or leave out entirely.  But that's going to be true with almost any book to film effort.   It brings the pretty and it's a story I enjoy, so for all my grousing I'm mostly good.

My feelings exactly! I know I grumble a fair bit, because I do get frustrated by some of the choices made, which seem inexplicable and unnecessary to me, but I do enjoy watching the show! It's so pretty, and the actors are fantastic for the most part.

[magdalene]

Does Ross ever find out that it was Caroline who gave him the money?

[Ceindreadh]

1 hour ago, magdalene said:

Does Ross ever find out that it was Caroline who gave him the money?

Yes.  In the books, Pascoe tells him, but only because Ross was in a position to pay off the interest due and was well on his way to having enough to pay down the capital as well. Should happen in ep 8.  

[LJones41]

Quote

This show gives me such inner conflict, because there's some great acting and some truly beautiful scenes - Eleanor Tomlinson shone in this episode, Demelza's pain was so raw. 

 

 

She wasn't the only one.  Both Heida Reed and Aidan Turner really knocked it out of the ballpark, as well.  It's a pity that very few are willing to appreciate their acting skills in this particular episode.

 

By the way, if that was Debbie Horsfield's idea of consensual sex, she might as well have portrayed the scene as it was written in the novel - as an act of rape; especially since the 2016 Elizabeth finally consented after Ross had her pinned to the bed.

 

Why do so many people assume that Francis' story in the 1975 adaptation was more faithful than the novel?  I just recently finished the 70s adaptation of the first two novels in the series.  They made a lot of changes that did not serve Graham's story that well.  Horsfield may have not been that completely faithful, but her version seemed a bit closer to the literary Francis to me.

Edited November 3, 2016 by LJones41

[LiveenLetLive]

So tonight was the last episode of series 2? Anyhoo, bigtime swoon--Caroline and Dwight, the actors were luminous in the scene where they reconcile. Plus Ross and Demelza of course. Finally only now does Elizabeth consider that she is carrying Ross's spawn rather than George's? I genuinely look forward to series 3. the preview looks exciting (of course, never having read the books I can only guess at who the new characters being introduced are.)

[CTrent29]

I'm curious . . . will Ross ever apologize to Elizabeth for what happened between them?  If not, he's a piece of real dirt.  Was the only way Demelza going to forgive him was for him to make those negative comments about Elizabeth?  What a disgusting scene to watch.

 

Now that Dwight and Caroline have achieved their happy moment, how will it go wrong for them?  It has to.  The story isn't over yet.  Or will their story be a "Verity lives happily ever after with Blamey" tale?

The mob scene at Trenwith was so stupid.  It was almost a remake of an equally stupid scene created by the 1975 producers who wanted to regain Ross' heroic image in the eyes of the viewers.  I guess Horsfield wanted to do the same.  How unimaginative.  

 

Quote

Finally only now does Elizabeth consider that she is carrying Ross's spawn rather than George's?

Okay.  When was she supposed to know?

Edited November 7, 2016 by CTrent29

[Glade]

I absolutely hated both Ross and Elizabeth for most of the finale (perhaps they are made for each other...)  but then Ross reconciled with Demelza and Elizabeth fell out of her arrogant fever-dream long enough to realize that she's married a horrible tyrant and is likely carrying Ross' baby (personally I thought that both Demelza and Elizabeth had already realized this fact at the dinner table and marveled at what a better person Demelza is for not shouting it right then and there), so at least they were both humanized a bit.  Where exactly would Ross' aunt sleep at Nampara if apparently there was no spare bedroom so Ross had to setup a bed in the library? 

Verity, and Dwight/Caroline at least were happy.  I thought Ross was so alienated by the american war that he wouldn't put on that uniform again.  I was surprised that Elizabeth wouldn't even apologize to Demelza or perhaps ask George to just let the shares purchase go, especially once she found out that it was Ross' gift to her.  But then apparently these people never get a life and stop feuding with each other.  I was very surprised to see a trailer for season 3 in the end credits, given that the episodes are a whole year away now.  I don't think I'll be watching though, as this show is just too tedious.

Edited November 7, 2016 by Glade

[Dirndl]

13 hours ago, CTrent29 said:

Was the only way Demelza going to forgive him was for him to make those negative comments about Elizabeth?  What a disgusting scene to watch.

I didn't hear any negative comments about Elizabeth? IMO Ross explained really well what he thought and how he realized that Elizabeth was a fantasy from the past and not what he wants and needs in the present. I liked it. Luckily because I didn't like him at all in the scenes beforehand. In contrast to Ross I adored Demelza during the whole episode. She rocks! For me season 2 was all about Demelza and I would watch a whole show about her. Eleonor Tomlinson is simply amazing and a joy to watch. Oh and how cute was Verity. I'm so happy that she got all that she wanted in the first season. Dwight/Caroline were nice but I'm just not that interested in them. Elizabeth made her bed and now she has to lie in it. No sympathy from me. I just feel bad for her poor son who now has to suffer because of his mother's mistakes.

34 minutes ago, Glade said:

I was surprised that Elizabeth wouldn't even apologize to Demelza or perhaps ask George to just let the shares purchase go, especially once she found out that it was Ross' gift to her.  But then apparently these people never get a life and stop feuding with each other.

Same here! I couldn't believe how Elizabeth acted in these scenes. Hopefully season 3 is finally about something else than this stupid feud between George and Ross.

They could totally use that show to promote tourism in GB. I'm not from GB (as you probably guessed from my many mistakes) and after watching Poldark I really want to spend a holiday in that area. All scenes especially the ones at the beach are shot so beautifully.

Edited November 7, 2016 by Dirndl

[Llywela]

Got to admit, I thought episode 10 was awful. Really, really awful. I know I've grumbled a fair bit all season, but I've generally enjoyed the show in spite of those  grumbles. Not this episode, though. I thought Debbie Horsfield claimed not to have seen the 1975 adaptation? This episode borrowed from it heavily, and not in a good way. I regret so many of the choices made here. Every change and omission made weakened the story and distorted the characters - and that's been true of the show from the start, but this episode especially drove the point home. The structure was poor, the whole sequence of events was changed and the narrative balance of the storylines lost, the timeline is completely up the spout, and most of the characters are little more than ciphers at this point. I feel bad for show watchers unfamiliar with the books, who can't hope to gain a proper understanding of the characters or their stories from what they are being shown.

I barely even know where to begin. Perhaps I'll just list a few of the details/scenes whose omission I most regret. I regret that all the tension of the episode built up to the riot at Trenwith (which never happened in the book), when that should have been the b-plot and the most important and defining storyline should have been the Ross/Demelza reconciliation - instead that whole sub-plot was cut to pieces here, losing all of the tension and high stakes of the long, winding reconciliation scene as told in the book and sacrificing a powerful character story and the emotional resolution needed for the two central characters of the show for the sake of a bit of manufactured melodrama.

I regret not getting to see Ross grovelling on his knees - I regret the decision not to include his actual apology to Demelza at all. I regret the weirdly altered timeline. I regret losing the scenes where Ross and Demelza plan together for Ross to go to London to talk to Caroline. I regret the choice to have Caroline stay at the inn with Dwight instead of going to Nampara for Christmas. Like, seriously - her blithely going off to spend the night with him at the hotel is absolutely not what happens in the book, and is really of out of character for both of them - especially Dwight, who was uncomfortable just about the idea of eloping after the scandal of his affair with Keren.

I regret losing the scene where Demelza asks Ross how he managed to reunite Dwight and Caroline and he tells her, "I asked myself: what would Demelza do? And then I did it!" I regret that Dwight and Caroline's story was so reduced all season (although it was better served than the Dwight-Keren-Mark story in S1 so perhaps I shouldn't complain!) There would have been more time to dedicate to characters outside the central triangle if storylines hadn't been inserted that were not in the novel. I really regret not getting to see Caroline teasing Dwight about his inspection of her chest and her inclusion into the Nampara set - its such an important relationship in the novels and it was undermined for more unnecessary drama.

I regret every decision made with regard to the reveal of Elizabeth's pregnancy - way to overdo the melodrama, folks! I regret a lot of the musical choices made for the episode, as well - I don't usually notice the music all that much, but I found it really intrusive and over-the-top here. I regret the way the show has twisted Agatha's characterisation for the sake of vocalising the exposition around Elizabeth's story.

Oh, I could continue, but you get the gist.

And yet I know I will watch next season despite my reservations and complaints...

[Clawdette]

Oh Llywela, I am heartbroken that we won't be getting (in the US) the beautifully written Ross-Demelza reconciliation scene from the book.  It served to illustrate and communicate the intense, deep emotions they have for each other.  Poor, poor choice, series!

[skyways]

I won't be watching next season as well. I barely got through this one and have skipped whole episodes! Now unto Victoria! Wait....I have actually seen and believe me, it will be the next big thing in PBS. Sorry for off-not so off- topic. Won't waste any energy typing anything about THIS Poldark.

Cheers all. By the way what episode ran in the US on Sunday? There's no thread?

[LiveenLetLive]

Actually I am glad that I haven't read the books and only have seen the 70's incarnation (only vaguely remembered at that.) Not having read the books, I am not disappointed by the changes, etc. and I honestly ended up enjoying this season although the Ross-George rivalry is extremely tedious. 

I am really looking forward to Victoria however since I went through a Victoria and Albert phase on youtube a few months ago, LOL.

[Llywela]

6 hours ago, Clawdette said:

Oh Llywela, I am heartbroken that we won't be getting (in the US) the beautifully written Ross-Demelza reconciliation scene from the book.  It served to illustrate and communicate the intense, deep emotions they have for each other.  Poor, poor choice, series!

Tell me about it. We get a bit of their argument about McNeill, but at a completely different point in the story - and it is used to support Ross's thoughts of re-enlisting, instead of being the catalyst that leads to their reconciliation. Instead the riot at Trenwith is used as that catalyst, and while we do get some of the original dialogue in cut-down form, not once does Ross actually apologise for what he did. When the whole of Warleggan builds to that final chapter, and it's a very long and winding scene in the book, yes, but so powerful and so important for both characters to get it all out like that - breaking it up into tiny chunks and skipping half of it leaves the reconciliation feeling unearned and the issues between them feeling unresolved.

A very poor episode. When this adaptation made such a splash about being faithful, painting itself as such in opposition to the 1975 adaptation, I had such high hopes. But it's been more a disappointment than the joy I was hoping for. And even in the limited episodes available, it doesn't have to be that way. I really wish the writer trusted the source material, but it is clear that she doesn't. And she doesn't seem to trust the viewers, either. She has stripped every last shred of subtlety and nuance out of the story and replaced it instead with heavy-handed exaggeration. I wish I could stop watching - but I know I won't.

[LiveenLetLive]

10 hours ago, Llywela said:

Tell me about it. We get a bit of their argument about McNeill, but at a completely different point in the story - and it is used to support Ross's thoughts of re-enlisting, instead of being the catalyst that leads to their reconciliation. Instead the riot at Trenwith is used as that catalyst, and while we do get some of the original dialogue in cut-down form, not once does Ross actually apologise for what he did. When the whole of Warleggan builds to that final chapter, and it's a very long and winding scene in the book, yes, but so powerful and so important for both characters to get it all out like that - breaking it up into tiny chunks and skipping half of it leaves the reconciliation feeling unearned and the issues between them feeling unresolved.

A very poor episode. When this adaptation made such a splash about being faithful, painting itself as such in opposition to the 1975 adaptation, I had such high hopes. But it's been more a disappointment than the joy I was hoping for. And even in the limited episodes available, it doesn't have to be that way. I really wish the writer trusted the source material, but it is clear that she doesn't. And she doesn't seem to trust the viewers, either. She has stripped every last shred of subtlety and nuance out of the story and replaced it instead with heavy-handed exaggeration. I wish I could stop watching - but I know I won't.

The issue with all adapters of books to other media is that they think that they know better and usually they didn't even start as fans. I had some problems with the Harry Potter adaptations but at least most of them were done with some sensitivity. It is truly a pity that Horsfield couldn't see the subtlety of the material but I am sure that she would say that having limited time to tell the story, that she had to move the action along, but I completely understand your frustration.

[NumberCruncher]

To be honest, I'm kind of surprised by the hatred for the finale episode.  Granted, I have not watched the 70s series but I have read over half of the books in the series and I really enjoyed this episode.  Sure it doesn't follow the books verbatim but I've never been one who believes that TV adaptations have to be completely faithful.  I enjoy new twists to surprise me as a viewer without deviating enough to change the overall plot.  I frankly loved the Dwight/Caroline scenes and didn't think it diminished either character to set aside propriety and convention given the cruel circumstances facing them.  I liked the Trenwith riot scene as well because it gave us some of the strongest acted moments of the series between AT and JF.  As for Ross and Demelza's reconciliation, I admit that the scene played out much better in the books and I'm still miffed that we never heard the word "sorry" from Ross, but overall it wasn't terrible.  I think the writers were successful in showing Ross's honesty both about the situation with Elizabeth and his ultimate choice in Demelza.  In that moment I believed Ross was sincere.  

The finale, along with the S3 preview, made me excited for more so I have no doubt I'll be watching again.  My only major complaint is that the wait will be too long!

[LJones41]

Quote

I was surprised that Elizabeth wouldn't even apologize to Demelza or perhaps ask George to just let the shares purchase go, especially once she found out that it was Ross' gift to her.  But then apparently these people never get a life and stop feuding with each other.

 

If I were Elizabeth, I wouldn't even bother apologizing to Demelza, because the latter really has no idea what happened between her and Ross.  I mean . . . Ross more or less raped Elizabeth.  That last minute act of consenting to have sex with him strikes me as false.  He would have raped her anyway if she had not consented.  And he did rape her in both the novel and the 1975 series.  Worse, he never really told Demelza what happened.  Which is probably why I find it hard to get worked up on Demelza's behalf, when it comes to Elizabeth.  I really didn't need to see her get holier than thou with Elizabeth.  I found it to be nothing more than a false "Team Demelza" cheer moment and a complete waste of my time, considering what really happened.  I didn't get worked up in the novel when Demelza expressed her anger at Elizabeth to Ross.  I didn't get worked up when she did the same in the 1975 production.  By the way, I was really pissed off on how that production added the mob scene at Trenwith.  And I certainly didn't get worked up with this production, which also pissed me off.

 

Quote

To be honest, I'm kind of surprised by the hatred for the finale episode.  Granted, I have not watched the 70s series but I have read over half of the books in the series and I really enjoyed this episode. 

 

The 1975 series handled the whole Ross-Elizabeth matter in its adaptation of "Warleggan" even worse fo rme.

Edited November 8, 2016 by LJones41

[Llywela]

2 hours ago, NumberCruncher said:

To be honest, I'm kind of surprised by the hatred for the finale episode. 

To be fair, I think it's only me that hated it, and my view is of course entirely subjective. I know that all adaptations have to take some liberties with the source material to fit them for the screen, but there are choices and there are choices to be made in the adaption process, and I disagreed with the choices made here.

52 minutes ago, LJones41 said:

 

If I were Elizabeth, I wouldn't even bother apologizing to Demelza, because the latter really has no idea what happened between her and Ross.  I mean . . . Ross more or less raped Elizabeth.  That last minute act of consenting to have sex with him strikes me as false.  He would have raped her anyway if she had not consented.  And he did rape her in both the novel and the 1975 series.  Worse, he never really told Demelza what happened.  Which is probably why I find it hard to get worked up on Demelza's behalf, when it comes to Elizabeth.  I really didn't need to see her get holier than thou with Elizabeth.  I found it to be nothing more than a false "Team Demelza" cheer moment and a complete waste of my time, considering what really happened.

This reminds me of another of my big regrets - I regret the decision not to include the exchange where Demelza actually defends Elizabeth to Ross, not because she likes or approves of the other woman, because she doesn't, but on behalf of all women who've ever been used and discarded by men. It's a fabulous exchange and I'm sorry that non-book-readers won't get to know it.

[nodorothyparker]

After finally having time to watch it, I didn't completely hate it.  But I didn't love it either or think it was anywhere near great TV. 

As with a lot of this with adaption, I did find some of the storytelling choices rather odd and pitched heavily toward melodrama.  I've never seen the 1975 version and from the sound of it probably wouldn't be interested, but apparently that's where the near riot at Trenwith comes from?  I get it that it would tough in visual form to show the slow burn of long simmering resentment George's sudden imperious presence in the neighborhood in a family estate that wasn't actually his or his decision to close off all the commonly used paths that crossed Trenwith land sparked for everybody in the story.  But all of the speechifying surrounding the near riot managed to feel both weirdly anachronistic at a time when everyone was constantly aware of class divisions and simultaneously dismissive that they were actually living in a period when there was near constant fear of the French Revolution spilling across the channel and having a peasants revolt of their own.

I will say the whole scene of Ross standing George down did achieve what I don't doubt was its intended objective of effectively emasculating George in front of his wife and everyone there and showing that despite all of George's bluster to the contrary, Ross was the better man in saving his life when he very easily could have stood back and watched the whole thing burn.  You could see that Elizabeth got that too as well as realizing that she'd bitten off far more than she could chew in marrying the jackass out of some sense of spite or comeuppance in the first place.

No, Ross never really did come out and apologize and we didn't get his wonderful book scenes of him trying to win Demelza back, but the scenes of him slowly working through his feelings for Demelza and what a huge influence and part of his life she was as he was reconciling Dwight and Caroline or dithering about rejoining the army actually worked for me in this context.  I thought we a got sort of modified version of his book "I thought of what Demelza would do and I did that" line when he acknowledged that Demelza was normally the meddler in the family but he was doing it anyway.

My biggest complaint is actually that it seemed they were trying to give this episode a too modern sensibility.  Caroline as an unmarried woman of good name and family never would have been in the local tavern, let alone sneaking off to Dwight's room.  It just wouldn't happen without the town gossip immediately becoming that she's a loose woman that every other man in the area would know about, likely including her uncle in very short order.  Even if Demelza's father wasn't a known religious wackadoo who at best would have very quickly sent her back to her husband with a biblical admonishment to get back in line under her husband's protection, as a married woman she legally doesn't have the right to go anywhere and certainly not with Ross's son without his say so.  Anne Bronte's wonderful early feminist The Tenant of Wildfell Hall addresses this subject in the story of an abused wife who has to go into hiding under an assumed name to get away from her husband but has to return to him when he tracks her down because she has no legal right to a divorce or to her child.  While I generally love Demelza, the writing for much of her dialogue this episode, particularly her speech about leaving him, read very much as a Go Team Demelza kind of thing and not reflective of what her reality would have been at all.

Edited November 11, 2016 by nodorothyparker

[Llywela]

4 hours ago, nodorothyparker said:

My biggest complaint is actually that it seemed they were trying to give this episode a too modern sensibility.  Caroline as an unmarried woman of good name and family never would have been in the local tavern, let alone sneaking off to Dwight's room.  It just wouldn't happen without the town gossip immediately becoming that she's a loose woman that every other man in the area would know about, likely including her uncle in very short order.  Even if Demelza's father wasn't a known religious wackadoo who at best would have very quickly sent her back to her husband with a biblical admonishment to get back in line under her husband's protection, as a married woman she legally doesn't have the right to go anywhere and certainly not with Ross's son without his say so.  Anne Bronte's wonderful early feminist The Tenant of Wildfell Hall addresses this subject in the story of an abused wife who has to go into hiding under an assumed name to get away from her husband but has to return to him when he tracks her down because she has no legal right to a divorce or to her child.  While I generally love Demelza, the writing for much of her dialogue this episode, particularly her speech about leaving him, read very much as a Go Team Demelza kind of thing and not reflective of what her reality would have been at all.
 

Yes, this. And it strikes me when reading the episode threads that a lot of the stuff that non-book reading viewers are getting confused or annoyed about are the changes made by the production team, all the stuff added in that doesn't come from the books, which too often seem to upset the balance and flow of the narrative rather than enhancing it. Which is part of the reason it saddens me to see so many changes, as I don't feel unspoiled viewers are getting to know the true story or characters - yet they think they are.

[nodorothyparker]

Because I couldn't sleep last night, I went back and skimmed through the last half of Warleggan to make sure my memory wasn't faulty.  There is a scene toward the end after they've been going round and round where Demelza does pack a bag and go through the motions of leaving.  It's very romance novel where the normally very proficient woman suddenly can't get the horse saddled on her own, can't quite get her stuff together, and generally gives Ross plenty of time to follow her out to the stable and talk her out it.  It's very obvious in my read that he's mostly humoring her and that they're both aware that she's not really going anywhere.  I'm okay with the decision not to drag that out because somehow that scene becomes more about Demelza's intended affair with McNeil and her guilt about it and not what Ross actually did, but the show manages to turn it into a much soapier "I'm leaving you forever and taking the kid!"   And even in this book scene taking Jeremy with her is never on the table.

What the reread did do is confirm my memory that Demelza brings up Ross leaving her to go be with Elizabeth only once or twice, where it seemed to be what she was baiting him to do in nearly every scene in the last two episodes.  Probably because Winston Graham knew perfectly well that divorce was a near impossibility in England at the time and that there's no way Ross as a married man could have gone to live openly with another woman without all of them and probably their children too becoming social pariahs.  In one of the two short passages that we get of what Elizabeth is actually thinking, she comments that Demelza lives and will continue to live and that neither she nor Ross have the money to run off to some far flung place where they might actually could be together, so she knows it too.  Which makes the scenes of Elizabeth and Agatha acting like it was ever a possibility Ross would be coming "home" to Trenwith or Demelza suggesting it or even Ross acting like there was ever anything they needed to let play out as he said last episode all the more anachronistic.  The book versions of our characters are well aware that they're all pretty much stuck where they are.

[CTrent29]

Quote

Dwight/Caroline were nice but I'm just not that interested in them. Elizabeth made her bed and now she has to lie in it. No sympathy from me. I just feel bad for her poor son who now has to suffer because of his mother's mistakes.

 

"Elizabeth made her bed?"  How?  By getting raped by Ross?  Because that is what it looked like to me.  "His mother's mistakes?"  Don't you mean Geoffrey Charles' uncle?  This is all Ross' fault due to his inability to control his feelings for Elizabeth and his stupid and macho attempt to have both her and Demelza under his control.  This is all on Ross.  And a good number of people will suffer because of him.

 

Have you seen how the 1975 series tried to rewrite the circumstances that led to Ross and Demelza's wedding?  Winston Graham hated it.  And I don't blame him.

[Pickles]

Season three. Is Elizabeth pregnant with Ross's child? 

[skyways]

Yes.

[magdalene]

I watched the preview trailer for next season that was linked in the media thread. Looks like here comes the odious vicar.  I remember this character vividly from the old show, and I also remember disliking him more than George.

[skyways]

Quote

I remember this character vividly from the old show, and I also remember disliking him more than George

.If Horsfield doesn't find a way to add her own 'ingredients' and somehow make it about Ross and his moment to shine..........

[LJones41]

15 hours ago, skyways said:

.If Horsfield doesn't find a way to add her own 'ingredients' and somehow make it about Ross and his moment to shine..........

Horsfield does this occasionally, because that is what many of the viewers want to see.  You think I'm kidding?  You should read the numerous comments on the web.  

The 1975 producers were guilty of the same crap.  Some writer named Julie Anne Taddeo had accused the 1970s producers of dangerously idealizing both Ross and Demelza.  

[Neurochick]

Last season, I complained, "why are people always talking about the books?"  This season, I started reading the books.

I have more sympathy for book Elizabeth than I do for show Elizabeth.  In the show, you really don't get why she even considered marrying George.  In the book, it's explained very clearly:  Elizabeth's mother had, what was probably a stroke, her father was clueless because her mom did everything, also there were expenses and issues that Elizabeth had to deal with, that she never had to deal with before; remember Verity was married and gone, so it was all on Elizabeth, and then George comes in and even though she really didn't like George, he was like a white knight coming to save the day.

Does Ross rape Elizabeth?  I read it in the book and it wasn't as clear to me at a later rape in book 5, which was described as such.  But, Ross definitely disrespected Elizabeth, not just by the sex, but by kind if "pumping and dumping" her.  Ross left and never came back.  So Elizabeth was like, "fuck you Ross," and she married George.  Even the book says that though the first issue between Elizabeth/Francis/Ross was because SHE couldn't make up her mind, the later issues was because ROSS couldn't make up his mind.  

But, book George is a real nasty POS in my opinion.

[LJones41]

Quote

In the show, you really don't get why she even considered marrying George.  In the book, it's explained very clearly:  Elizabeth's mother had, what was probably a stroke, her father was clueless because her mom did everything, also there were expenses and issues that Elizabeth had to deal with, that she never had to deal with before; remember Verity was married and gone, so it was all on Elizabeth, and then George comes in and even though she really didn't like George, he was like a white knight coming to save the day.

 

 

I could have sworn that the series made this clear.  In fact, I do recall the series making this clear.

[nodorothyparker]

The series does include a scene where it's made clear that Elizabeth's mother has had a probably stroke and needs constant nursing care that Elizabeth clearly can't afford.  There are also scenes of her fretting about the estate's debts and lack of income, which were of course spurred on by George to pressure her.  I think we were supposed to infer from all the scenes of her staring passively out the windows waiting futilely for Ross before finally accepting George that she finally finally! made a move that was both out of spite and for necessary material concerns.

[Clawdette]

In looking ahead to Season 3, the creators have announced they included book five and part (half?) of book six. Book readers, where do you think they divided six?

[nodorothyparker]

Good question.  Considering that the seventh book is the last before the generation jump and has a couple of huge plot resolutions, it makes sense that they'd try to figure out a divide that would get them two more seasons with the current cast as-is.

I won't be complaining if they skip a lot of the awkward romancing via heavy talk of Methodism.