Jump to content

Type keyword(s) to search

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


  • Reply
  • Start Topic

Recommended Posts

18 hours ago, Clawdette said:

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?

I'm reading book six now but I do know that book seven is the last before the time jump.  I thought the first part of book five dragged a bit, the last part was exciting though, especially when George kind of gets on the clue bus about Valentine. 

Link to comment
On January 9, 2017 at 2:07 PM, LJones41 said:

I would have preferred if Horsfield had adapted Books Five and Six for Season Three and Book Seven ("The Angry Tide") for Season Four.

I wish "The Angry Tide" was the last book, because I just aren't invested in the next generation, I'm on "The Loving Cup" now.

  • Love 3
Link to comment
Quote

 In the show, you really don't get why she even considered marrying George.

 

Really?  You never undestood why the television version of Elizabeth had married George?  I did.  She did it for the same reason as the literary Elizabeth.  How could you have missed that?

 

Quote

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.

 

 

I believe it was rape.  Even though Ross tried to pretend to himself that he had done nothing wrong and that Elizabeth had enjoyed his attentions, the novels "Warleggan", "The Angry Tide" and "Bella Poldark" confirmed that he had raped her.

 

Quote
Quote

 

 

I also view his actions in this series as rape, considering that he had forced himself into her home, into her bedroom and literally threw her on her bed and forced himself on top of her.  Her last minute consent was a copout created by Debbie Horsfield in some lame attempt to salvage Ross' reputation.

  • Love 2
Link to comment

I finally signed up for Acorn TV and am now working my way through the 1970's series. I'm through episode 3 of that version.  I've also started reading the books and am about half way through the 3rd book. I'm still within the story I know from the current series so it's been interesting both reading the full story and seeing how it was interpreted for T.V. the first time.

Robin Ellis was a very good looking man and an interesting version of Ross. Not entirely unsimilar to Aidan Turner's version, just a little more rough and cold, IMO. The 1970's actress playing Demelza is completely different. Her "urchin" version is visually different than her more grown up version. It was hard for me to imagine her as a woman when I first saw her, but in the 3rd episode she seemed like a completely different person, unlike the current actress, who was clearly a pretty girl/woman even as an "urchin." But, boy, the actresses playing Elizabeth are completely different in both look and tone. The first actress's character is easily unlikable while I kind of like the current actress's version.

The scenery and visuals for this story have really benefited from the new version. The older version's attempts to show long shots of Cornwall look rather pitiful, especially after seeing the current version's cinematography.

Link to comment
(edited)

Wow, there really is nothing subtle about this show whatsoever, is there? I'd kind of forgotten that, over the long hiatus.

I can't quite remember how we handle UK-viewing-with-book-spoilers, but I'm in the UK watching live (ish, it's taken me three days to get around to watching, in fact) and can't talk in the episode threads, because I'm a book reader and want to compare, so I'm going to talk about the episodes here, since this thread presupposes full knowledge of the entire 12-novel story. I can put my thoughts and comments behind a spoiler cut though, if any want? Well, I'll do that anyway, for starters, and see how we get on.

So, episode 3x01.

 

I'll start by saying that the episode was entertaining enough, as an episode of Sunday night telly, if a bit melodramatic and about as subtle as a brick. And then I'll add that this version really can no longer claim to be the fully faithful adaptation - there were so many changes to the story here I hardly know where to begin. Some I can see the sense of, others I can't. And the timeline! My brain desperately wants to make sense of the timeline, but I can't because it's all up the spout and has been since season one. They didn't even have Valentine being born on Valentine's Day which was the whole reason for his being given that name!

So far as the new characters go, I've seen and liked Ellise Chappell previously, and like the look of this Drake so far, so I'm expecting to enjoy Drake and Morwenna's story - depending, of course, on what the show does with it. Sam I'm less fond of in every version, and we didn't see that much of him here, so far, so the jury's out there. I was sorry to see the change to Drake and Morwenna's first meeting - it's such a vivid scene in the book, with Drake and Sam hauling that enormous ship's mast through the wood to use in the rebuilding of Mark Daniel's old house. The timeline here has been compressed so they meet Morwenna and Geoffrey Charles earlier - and the show really does seem determined to make all significant encounters take place on that dratted cliff!

I'm not sure what was up with that melodramatic opening scene of Elizabeth's horse bolting and having to be rescued by Ross. They felt the need for a scene that would remind viewers of the current dynamic between Ross, Elizabeth and George, I guess - and to imply that Elizabeth is being deliberately reckless for fear of an early labour. Not in the book, however. I side-eyed that detail a little, but actually quite liked what they did with Elizabeth here - and I say that as someone who has never really liked this Elizabeth very much.

I did not, however, like what they did with Dwight and Caroline's story here. I understand the desire to find a way of keeping Dwight in the story (he doesn't appear at all in this book until the very end), but there are ways and ways of going about that, and this just felt like a short-term gain that absolutely torpedoes their story long-term. I'm still really angry that the show had them sleep together last season, in such a cheap, throwaway scene, when the fact that they don't sleep together until their wedding night, despite having been through so much together over so many years, is a really big deal in the book, and a beautiful scene when it finally happens, which now can't happen in the same way because not only have they already done the deed, but they are already married! When Caroline's entire story and character development in the book revolves around the fact that she isn't married to Dwight when he goes missing, and therefore has no official status to obtain information - or any official reason to mourn his loss, has to bottle it all up around everyone but Ross and Demelza. Speaking of which, I also regret a bit that Caroline and Demelza are already friends in this version - I mean, from a Bechdel point of view I'm all for it, they had some nice scenes last season, but in the book they still barely know one another at this point, it is Dwight's disappearance that throws them together in a sense, because Caroline has no one else to talk to, with the engagement being such a secret, so reaches out to Demelza, and the development of their relationship from virtual strangers to best friends is one of my favourite things in this book. We've lost that development, too.

Uncle Ray doesn't die this early in the book, either, and nor does he ever find out about the secret engagement (still less the eventual marriage). Nursing him through the long, lonely months when Dwight is missing is a huge part of Caroline's character development. She has been robbed of so much of her story from the book, all for the sake of shoehorning Dwight into this one episode - and I love Dwight as a character, but he really shouldn't have been in this episode, or if he was, he shouldn't have been on land!  Damn, and I've just realised that we now won't get Dwight and Caroline's actual wedding when we get to it in the next book, because it has already happened, and I really love that chapter because a) it is told through George's eyes and he is hilariously sour about the whole thing, and b) I love that it happens when Dwight is still so frail and far from recovered, and yet Caroline is absolutely radiant with happiness and love. It's just one of many changes that makes me believe that the writer does not read further ahead than the book she is adapting at present - I've believed it since early in season two, when she had to scrabble like mad to pull back some of the changes she'd made in season one. I really don't think she knows the full story, and does not have full sight of the impact the changes she makes will have on future storylines going forward. Again and again this adaptation sacrifices long-term characterisation and character development for the sake of short-term convenience and momentary drama.

The new Geoffrey Charles is fabulous and reminds me that Geoffrey Charles is absolutely my favourite Poldark in the novels, more and more so as he grows up. But seeing such prolonged scenes of Elizabeth in labour reminded me that we missed out on the hilarious story of Julia's birth.

And that reminds me that although we saw Demelza telling Ross about her pregnancy, they didn't include the line Demelza has in the book about how Ross was so annoyed with her for keeping her first two pregnancies secret, so she thought she'd better tell him about this one right away, even if the timing does seem lousy (I'm paraphrasing here, since I don't have the book in front of me to quote the exact words!), which is a bit of a shame because it would have been a nice little nod back to their history as a couple.

I don't remember Valentine's dubious parentage being such a big deal this early on in the book (from memory, Ross and Demelza were much more loved up at this point than we saw here, following their reunion) but I actually like that it was leaned on a bit more here, that suspicion festering away in the hearts of all the major players.

Edited by Llywela
  • Love 2
Link to comment

3x02 - I actually liked this episode, despite the manifold changes made to the story.

I think it helped that I could see the logic behind most of the changes made, even if I didn't necessarily agree with them - and even if I do regret the loss of some favourite scenes from the novel, such as Caroline's rush to Verity's home in Falmouth after hearing rumours about the loss of Dwight's ship, and the fact that the two had barely even been introduced previously, yet shared this very intense scene as Verity was able to produce for Caroline a week-old news sheet reporting the loss of the Travail, and then use her contacts at the harbour-master's office to press for more news. Graham's original version of the story was changed quite enormously in this episode, adding a sub-plot about Andrew Blamey's ship also going missing, with Verity at Trenwith for a visit instead of at her own home in Falmouth, presumably to draw Verity into the action more - and to allow Ross to play the hero again. Actually, now that I think about it, I kind of resent that the role of going off in search of that initial information was taken away from a woman and given to a man - especially since the woman's part in the drama was reduced to weeping and wailing on the shoulder of said man. It's such a strong sequence for book!Verity, taking Caroline in off the street as a virtual stranger and being able to provide for her exactly what she needed in that moment: information, comfort and support. It feels all kinds of anti-feminist to take that away from her so that Ross can be the shoulder to cry on and ride off all manly and heroic in search of information.

Hmm. Okay, so maybe I should revise my opinion from 'I enjoyed it', to 'I enjoyed it as an episode, but with a number of provisos that will probably annoy me all the more as I stop to examine them in more detail'.

I'm still really angry that the show has got Dwight and Caroline married so early - it seems on the surface such a minor change, since it is still a secret, and they are clearly building up to having another 'wedding' at the same point it happens in the novels, but scratch that surface and actually it's a really significant change that impacts on their entire story. It matters to their story that they aren't married at the time Dwight goes missing, that Caroline has nothing to cling onto but a promise of marriage if he ever makes it home, that she has no official status with which to press the authorities for news. It matters to their story that Uncle Ray doesn't die this early, that Caroline has to spend months hiding her grief and fear while nursing him through his final months. And it especially matters to their story that Caroline promises to marry Dwight when he is hale and healthy, but then still wants to marry him when he is sick and broken, takes him home with her to nurse him while they are still unmarried, heedless of what anyone thinks or says, and holds her head high with pride and joy at their wedding despite his continued frailty. Having them married already robs their story of all that deeper meaning and characterisation.

And I was reminded in this episode that last week Dwight and Ross said between them that Ross helping arrange the covert marriage was repayment of the debt he owed to them - in the novel, a big part of the reason Ross is so determined to find and rescue Dwight is that sense of obligation, because stopping to save his life cost Dwight and Caroline the life together they had planned, and that debt has not yet been repaid. It's a big part of Ross's driving motivation - yet here, we're told the debt has already been repaid by his arranging their secret marriage, and sure, concern for his friend is a strong motivation, is also a big part of his motivation in the book, but that driving sense of obligation is an important part of Ross's character and motivation that's been lost here, and I hate seeing complex characterisation simplified, if that makes sense.

Having said all that, I did actually enjoy seeing Verity playing a bigger part in the story here, although I got the sense that this was her swansong - it felt like she was being written out with this story, going off to Lisbon to join her husband (taking her baby on a dangerous sea voyage in wartime, when we have just had demonstrated that even merchant vessels were not safe? Really?) And on the one hand, writing her out here would make sense, because Verity doesn't play a huge part in the story going forward...except that she is a big part of Dwight's rescue story. It is to Verity's house in Falmouth that Ross first takes Dwight when he is rescued, and it is to Verity's house that Caroline rushes when she learns the news, because she isn't prepared to wait a moment longer. I'm wondering now if that part of the story will also be changed now - in fact, I'm going to predict here and now that they'll have Ross's stolen boat put in directly at Nampara cove instead of going to Falmouth!

One more note of complaint: why does the show insist on having all graves right on the edge of random cliffs? They did it with Jim Carter, and now here again with Ray Penvenen. Ray Penvenen was a wealthy local squire - he'd have a family plot in the cemetary, not an isolated stone on the edge of a a cliff!

Okay, after all that ranting, let me add that I am really, really enjoying Drake, Morwenna and Geoffrey Charles! I'm happy that we did get the ship's mast hauling scene, even if it wasn't a first meeting as in the book. I liked Sam a lot more here - loved that scene of him messing about in the water with Drake, showing us that he does have a fun-loving side. I like how they are playing the Valentine story, keeping it this big unspoken shadow hanging over all the characters concerned, the elephant in the room that no one is willing to name. And I really appreciate that Francis is being mentioned so often - it's a thing that really struck me in the novels, that despite his many failures in life, Francis cast such a tremendously long shadow in death.

Right, I've rattled on long enough!

  • Love 2
Link to comment
(edited)

It's been said before, I think, but for me there are four phases of Poldark - P75, the original books, the later books and now P15. 

 

I don't recall too much of P15 (I was 12) except that I enjoyed it. The early books were different and I devoured them - book 1 in particular; as a 13 year old boy it was a hell of a read and I have to wonder to what extent I absorbed some of Ross's values. I enjoyed the later books less and am now happy to simply enjoy P15+ for what it is. I don't get into the plot differences too much tbh. I do have a few observations though and I'll do a separate post for each.

George - I think JF is doing a great job; he is physically different to the books but he is delivering a different George to Ralph Bates. He seems far better integrated into Society but there are moments when he is clearly mastering the rejection he feels. Outwardly calm you can see he is seething; he's not going to be a redeemed villain; the tragedy is that there are moments (such as when he's sat as a Magistrate) when it looks as if he realises what he's doing  but he suppresses any instinct to do the right thing. 

Francis - I think he gets short changed in the TV versions; he's a loser but he's always compared to Ross. When he's good he's a great character to read and watch; if he'd decided to go home and read to Geoffrey Charles instead of go down the mine, the books could have ended happily there. There was a point in P15 when Ross, Francis, Dwight and Blamey were gathered in a huddle and it reminded me of "Tombstone" - a posse of principled men who could have taken on the Warleggans. Different story of course. I like the character and he is what he is because not all blokes are Ross, most of us are just trying to get by and succeed only in making utter arses of ourselves. 

Edited by Nash
Typo
  • Love 2
Link to comment

I've been waiting to see who would be playing Rowella, and I'm not disappointed. Her name is Esme Coy and she's only been in one other thing (thanks, IMDb). Julie Dawn Cole (aka Veruca Salt in the original Willy Wonka movie) was so great in the original series that I've never forgotten her portrayal of Rowella. Coy seems to have the right blend of wide-eyed youth and seeming-innocence-but really-deviousness for the role.

Link to comment

She's very unlike the book description of her character, which seen through Osborne's eyes you're never sure of what her motives are or what the attraction even is in the first place.  Book Rowella is not a great beauty by any stretch and is often described as dressing like a burlap sack.  But once you get past that, she's strangely working for me in that she's just as enigmatic both to Osborne and to the audience.

Link to comment
Quote

Francis - I think he gets short changed in the TV versions; he's a loser but he's always compared to Ross. 

 

Frankly, Francis struck me as a loser in not only the 1975 and 2015 versions, but also in the first two novels.

  • Love 1
Link to comment

The thing is though, I like Francis. I enjoyed reading about him and what has to come across is that he's a loser but still has good qualities and becomes aware of his failings. 

  • Love 1
Link to comment

I generally like Francis for what he is, someone who's stuck first in his father's and then in Ross's shadow and doesn't always make the best choices as a result.  Marrying the girl who never quite stopped mooning over Ross, nor he over her, didn't help matters any. 

  • Love 3
Link to comment
10 minutes ago, nodorothyparker said:

I generally like Francis for what he is, someone who's stuck first in his father's and then in Ross's shadow and doesn't always make the best choices as a result.  Marrying the girl who never quite stopped mooning over Ross, nor he over her, didn't help matters any. 

Precisely 

Link to comment
Quote

I generally like Francis for what he is, someone who's stuck first in his father's and then in Ross's shadow and doesn't always make the best choices as a result.  Marrying the girl who never quite stopped mooning over Ross, nor he over her, didn't help matters any. 

 

 

That was Francis' fault, not Elizabeth's.  She really tried to make her marriage to Francis work.  Between George's insinuations and Francis' inferiority complex, it didn't . . . until their last year together.  Regardless of whether Elizabeth had remained in love with Ross or not, she also loved Francis and she tried more than he did to make that marriage work.

Edited by LJones41
  • Love 2
Link to comment
On 8/2/2017 at 4:33 PM, nodorothyparker said:

I generally like Francis for what he is, someone who's stuck first in his father's and then in Ross's shadow and doesn't always make the best choices as a result.  Marrying the girl who never quite stopped mooning over Ross, nor he over her, didn't help matters any. 

Thing is, he gave Elizabeth the opportunity to back out gracefully before the wedding. She chose not to so in his mind, his job is done, he can rest easy that she loves him and will be happy in their marriage. Little did he know that her mother had to talk her into it. And I don't think he was being super unreasonable in his jealousy though? The way he expresses is terrible of course, but you saw how Ross and Elizabeth were giving each other the heart eyes during their dance in S1E2 and Ross is always hanging around being super manly and more useful than Francis could ever hope to be. In addition to the fact that he knew both Ross and Elizabeth during the pre-war days, I can't blame him for being insecure about his wife. 

I'm not a book reader so I don't know how Francis is physically described in the books of if Ross is actually supposed to be that handsome, but in the 2015 show at least, can you blame a guy for feeling insecure next to Aidan Turner. 

  • Love 1
Link to comment

So: sucked in by 1975’s Series 1, Ep 5 (long story), I finally found the first scene in the first episode.

Sitting next to Robin Ellis in the coach was none other than Zelah Clarke, who, six years later, would go on to play the best of all the Jane Eyres, opposite Timothy Dalton.  Wow!  I checked IMDb, and she’s just “Girl in coach”, though she might have done well as Verity (too young in 77, though).

I love finding little connect-the-dots like that; so common in British TV with their smaller acting community.

  • Love 1
Link to comment
On 11/20/2017 at 5:19 AM, voiceover said:

So: sucked in by 1975’s Series 1, Ep 5 (long story), I finally found the first scene in the first episode.

Sitting next to Robin Ellis in the coach was none other than Zelah Clarke, who, six years later, would go on to play the best of all the Jane Eyres, opposite Timothy Dalton.  Wow!  I checked IMDb, and she’s just “Girl in coach”, though she might have done well as Verity (too young in 77, though).

I love finding little connect-the-dots like that; so common in British TV with their smaller acting community.

The actress who played Rowella also played Veruca Salt.

Link to comment
On 10/27/2017 at 6:54 PM, rebecca dewinter said:

Thing is, he gave Elizabeth the opportunity to back out gracefully before the wedding. She chose not to so in his mind, his job is done, he can rest easy that she loves him and will be happy in their marriage. Little did he know that her mother had to talk her into it. And I don't think he was being super unreasonable in his jealousy though? The way he expresses is terrible of course, but you saw how Ross and Elizabeth were giving each other the heart eyes during their dance in S1E2 and Ross is always hanging around being super manly and more useful than Francis could ever hope to be. In addition to the fact that he knew both Ross and Elizabeth during the pre-war days, I can't blame him for being insecure about his wife. 

I'm not a book reader so I don't know how Francis is physically described in the books of if Ross is actually supposed to be that handsome, but in the 2015 show at least, can you blame a guy for feeling insecure next to Aidan Turner. 

 

In the novel, Elizabeth had no doubts about marrying Francis at the time.  Mind you, like the miniseries, Ross didn't bother to talk to her until the wedding reception.  But Elizabeth truly believed she was in love with Francis, when she married him.

 

However, by the "Warleggan" novel, she came to realize that she made a mistake in marrying him.  And in a conversation with Ross in the novel, she eventually admitted it.  Why Debbie Horsfield made these changes when it was unnecessary, I don't know.  Then again, Horsfield made a lot of unnecessary changes in her adaptations of Graham's novels.  Her worst changes occurred in late Season Two and throughout most of Season Three.  So far.

 

Why would Kylo Soller feel insecure next to Aidan Turner?  He is a pretty damn handsome looking man in his own right, with eyes and cheekbones to die for.

Edited by CTrent29
Link to comment
On 10/28/2017 at 2:54 AM, rebecca dewinter said:

I'm not a book reader so I don't know how Francis is physically described in the books of if Ross is actually supposed to be that handsome, but in the 2015 show at least, can you blame a guy for feeling insecure next to Aidan Turner. 

Book!Francis is the golden boy right up until his marriage falls apart. Graham describes him as handsome and carefree, full of raffish charm. Kyle Soller is a good-looking man, but the show did the character a real disservice by making him such a nervous wreck right from the off. In the book, Ross and Francis are like mirror opposites - the one dark and the other fair, while they follow roughly reverse trajectories through the first book: while Ross starts out pretty much at rock bottom and slowly claws his way back onto an upswing, Francis starts out on a high and then goes into a slow decline.

9 hours ago, CTrent29 said:

In the novel, Elizabeth had no doubts about marrying Francis at the time.  Mind you, like the miniseries, Ross didn't bother to talk to her until the wedding reception.  But Elizabeth truly believed she was in love with Francis, when she married him.

However, by the "Warleggan" novel, she came to realize that she made a mistake in marrying him.  And in a conversation with Ross in the novel, she eventually admitted it.  Why Debbie Horsfield made these changes when it was unnecessary, I don't know.  Then again, Horsfield made a lot of unnecessary changes in her adaptations of Graham's novels.  Her worst changes occurred in late Season Two and throughout most of Season Three.  So far.

Why would Kylo Soller feel insecure next to Aidan Turner?  He is a pretty damn handsome looking man in his own right, with eyes and cheekbones to die for.

What CTrent29 said. In Graham's novel, Elizabeth believes herself to be in love with Francis when she marries him - she is thrown by Ross's return, largely because it makes her feel bad for not keeping faith with him, since he has with her, but she doesn't regret her choice, she is only sorry that Ross feels hurt by it. At the start of the story, Francis and Elizabeth are the golden couple, full of life and laughter, happy together - it is only later that the gloss wears off, when Geoffrey Charles is born and Elizabeth rather abruptly loses interest in Francis, who cannot understand her total absorption with her child, while Grambler is starting to fail and Charles has become sick and frail, so that a lot of responsibility suddenly lands on Francis's shoulders and he finds himself unequal to it.

Honestly, the character assassination of Francis is one of my biggest regrets about the show.

  • Love 2
Link to comment

I don't think the series had committed character assassination of Francis.  I had recently read both "Ross Poldark" and "Demelza".  I thought the adaptation was pretty spot on, with the exception of a few changes.  It didn't take George Warleggan to make Francis doubt Elizabeth's feelings for him.  Frankly, it seemed his own ego did the trick.  He began to doubt Elizabeth's feelings when she made it clear that she wasn't interested in having sex with him on the night following Geoffrey Charles.  The novel made it clear that Elizabeth was still exhausted from giving birth and was trying to recover.  Francis immediately assumed that she was no longer interested in him.  Worse, he became aware of Elizabeth's strong maternal feelings for Geoffrey Charles and reacted with a bit of jealousy.  It all went downhill from there.

Edited by LJones41
Link to comment

The show absolutely destroyed Francis's character. Book Francis is a mercurial character - he swings from great highs to terrible lows. On an upswing, he is great fun and extremely witty. On a downswing he is bitter and self-destructive. As the story opens, his father is proud of him and considers him a great help, while Elizabeth is happy to have chosen him. His life then steadily spirals downward from that position, but he starts on a high and continues to ride it until Geoffrey's birth and Charles's heart attack. The show altered his story and character enormously by making him out to be utterly useless from the start - from the very first episode we are shown that his father despises him and Elizabeth only goes through with the marriage because she feels she must, both because she has promised and because it is a better match. Show Francis is riddled with self-doubt from the start - unlike proud, confident Book Francis, who absolutely is the golden boy for the first half of that first novel. If you think otherwise, you must have read a different book than I did!

Don't get me wrong, we don't actually see very much of Francis in that first novel, and the seeds of his later downfall are there from the start - he has a temper, he is proud, and he is inclined to jealousy, while he has also had a comfortable enough life that he lacks the wherewithal and fortitude to cope when things start to go wrong. But Book Francis is a balanced character with both strengths and weaknesses. Season one of the show removed that balance by stripping him of all his charm and wit while exaggerating his weaknesses - only in season two, after he'd hit rock bottom and started to recover, were we allowed to see that he does also have positive attributes as well. To me, that is a huge departure from the story as told in the novel, and from the character as described in the novel.

Also, it wasn't the night after giving birth that Elizabeth rejects Francis in the novel, it is the night of the christening, which is several weeks if not months later (we are told that the christening was delayed to give Elizabeth time to recover). And yes, she is within her rights to say no, but she does not do so out of post-partum exhaustion but because she is absorbed in her child to the exclusion of all else and simply isn't interested, we are shown that quite clearly. Francis then reacts badly, yes, as being refused stirs up a lot of insecurity (plus his father has just that day had a serious heart attack, he has a house full of guests, Verity is in pieces, and in the middle of the crisis Elizabeth checked out and took herself off to bed, so he is pretty stressed in general in that scene) - it is the first break in their relationship, which never recovers.  Actually, I think you may be projecting elements of the show backward onto the book, because at that stage in the novel, George Warleggan isn't trying to stir up trouble between Francis and Elizabeth - we barely see George in the first novel at all.

Edited by Llywela
  • Love 3
Link to comment

I guess we have to agree to disagree.  I really wasn't that impressed by the literary Francis.  Come to think of it, my opinion of Ross has somewhat declined over the next several novels.

 

Quote

Also, it wasn't the night after giving birth that Elizabeth rejects Francis in the novel, it is the night of the christening, which is several weeks if not months later (we are told that the christening was delayed to give Elizabeth time to recover).

 

I never said that Elizabeth had rejected Francis on the night of Geoffrey Charles' birth.  Actually, I forgot to indicate whether it was the day of GC's christening or birth.  Blooper on my part.

Edited by LJones41
Link to comment

I watched Season 1 and really enjoyed it.  But, Season 2 & Season 3 I could not watch.  This show has great potential, but it dwells too much on the rivalries/love interests between the characters, which turns it into a soap opera.  Specifically, the rivalry between Ross and George: there is no subtlety about it.  Any good rivalry depends on good writing.  I would have loved to see better angles and schemes that Ross could have employed to get back at George.  His trial in Season 2 is another example: the writers could have created a better counter and defense to the attacks on his character.  The lack of this dumbs the story down to 8-year-old boys with no creativity...just glaring at one another.  Another issue I had was Demelza's frequent whining look on her face; it became nauseous after awhile; whining is a poor substitute for taking action, which is much more interesting.  It's such a shame as this show has so much potential.

Link to comment
Quote

 I would have loved to see better angles and schemes that Ross could have employed to get back at George. 

 

I don't think I would have been impressed by Ross if he had engaged in that behavior.  I already harbor a low opinion of him, thanks to what he had done to Elizabeth.

Edited by LJones41
Link to comment
2 hours ago, Tyro49 said:

Will we ever get a Poldark series that not only follows the books but uses all of them, following the story to the finish? I'd love to see that!

I think it could be done - but it would make for a very long show, especially if you wanted to genuinely do justice to each book by giving them a season apiece, to allow proper exploration of all the sub-plots and characters. Plus the 12 novels cover more than 40 years in the lives of the characters (from 1783 to 1815), including a 10 year time jump after book 7, and it would be really tough to find actors who could convincingly portray the same character from youth to old age. Ross, for instance, is early 20s in book 1 and in his mid-60s by book 12 - Demelza starts out at 13 in book 1 and is mid-50s by book 12.

The 5 seasons this current adaptation has produced have spanned I think something like 18-20 years, so that by the final season all the actors are playing around 10-15 years older than their actual age, and they are barely getting away with that as it is, given that none of them really looks much older than they did at the start with only the size of the children to mark the passage of years. There is no way a late-30s/40-year-old Aidan Turner could pass as the 65-year-old Ross of book 12, or 20-something Eleanor Turner pass as 55-year-old Demelza. The only option would be to recast after the time jump - which, to be fair, is how The Crown has handled ageing up its characters, but it would be jarring.

Also, the original characters take quite a back seat in the last 5 books, with the younger generation stepping to the fore (most of them turning out to be quite unpleasant characters, frankly, the only one of the next gen characters I actually like in those later books is Geoffrey Charles, tbh, and he becomes a very minor figure). The audience might not enjoy seeing the characters they've grown attached to taking such a back seat, especially given the antics of the next generation - recasting the older characters at that point might help with that, or then again it might well alienate viewers completely. Jumping forward in time, new lead characters who frankly can't hold a candle to the originals, recasting the original characters...it would essentially become an entirely new show. And viewing audiences can be very resistant to change. The one adaptation of those later books that has been attempted was not very successful.

So it would be a problematic endeavour - doable, perhaps, but difficult.

Edited by Llywela
  • Love 2
Link to comment

It is fascinating to see the discussion in the current episode threads around Morwenna and John Conan, with all the show-only fans so upset that Morwenna isn't allowed to raise her son. I'm not watching, but I guess this means that Show!Morwenna is upset about having to leave her son with his grandmother?

That is such a contrast to the novels, in which Morwenna was glad to leave John Conan with his grandmother because she had no maternal feelings toward him whatsoever. Everything about him was a trigger to her PTSD, more especially because he resembled Osborne so strongly - when she finally did meet him again, years later when he was a teen, she was so distressed that she fainted on the spot.

I guess the showrunners must have decided that they didn't want their version of the character to seem to blame her child for having been born of rape.

  • Useful 1
  • Love 6
Link to comment

Show Morwenna is sad about it and misses John Conan to the point of sneaking away regularly to peek at him through the hedges, but she at least seems mostly resigned to the reality that this is how it is.  Or at least she did until she briefly speculated this last episode that Drake wouldn't want "a child by another man" in his home anyway.  Drake is the one going off half-cocked acting like it was ever in realm of possibility that he could go get John Conan for her so she wouldn't be sad and even snatches him from the Whitworth house until Demelza of all people suddenly remembers when this story is set and reminds him that Morwenna has no legal rights to him and that he's essentially a kidnapper.  

I can only assume the show figures it looks odd that Morwenna is running the closest thing the village has to a school out of the Carne hovel for all the village and mine children and is happily embracing them if she isn't also pining for her own child.  But since Morwenna and Drake's story this season has mostly been him being all sad-eyed and understanding to her while moping to his siblings that they're still not having sex while also musing aloud periodically how great it would be if they could have a child of their own, you'll have that.  This is the same show, after all, that felt the need to show Morwenna assuring baby John Conan that oh she didn't really mean it all the times she was threatening to kill him to Ossie when one of the great things about her book counterpart is you honestly never know any more than Ossie does just how serious she is.

  • Love 2
Link to comment
2 hours ago, nodorothyparker said:

one of the great things about her book counterpart is you honestly never know any more than Ossie does just how serious she is.

Alas, the show has stripped a lot of the complexity from a lot of the characters. Oh well. Thanks for clarifying for me!

Link to comment
10 hours ago, Llywela said:

It is fascinating to see the discussion in the current episode threads around Morwenna and John Conan, with all the show-only fans so upset that Morwenna isn't allowed to raise her son. I'm not watching, but I guess this means that Show!Morwenna is upset about having to leave her son with his grandmother?

That is such a contrast to the novels, in which Morwenna was glad to leave John Conan with his grandmother because she had no maternal feelings toward him whatsoever. Everything about him was a trigger to her PTSD, more especially because he resembled Osborne so strongly - when she finally did meet him again, years later when he was a teen, she was so distressed that she fainted on the spot.

I guess the showrunners must have decided that they didn't want their version of the character to seem to blame her child for having been born of rape.

I've noticed this with a lot of adaptations in general. I think showrunners/movie producers are reluctant to depict non-maternal women who are not intended to be villains. So, they strip that away from female characters because they are afraid it will make them unlikable or unsympathetic. 

  • Love 3
Link to comment
18 hours ago, Tyro49 said:

One thing I've wondered about since season one is what was the point of replacing George's father with an "uncle"?

The uncle does also exist in the books, but yeah, it does seem a bit of a pointless change. Maybe to make George seem more isolated and add a bit of pathos to his backstory? The poor little orphan boy raised by a cold, calculating uncle, who overcame his lowborn roots and difficult upbringing to become the wealthiest man in the county? I dunno. I didn't understand the thought process behind most of the changes they made for this show. Like changing Dwight's entire backstory to make him an old army buddy of Ross from the war instead of letting them meet on-screen and develop a friendship from there like in the books - seems a small thing but it changes their entire dynamic in really subtle ways (Book!Ross is several years older, rather than a peer, and is a mentor and patron to Dwight at first; the friendship only really becomes more equal after Dwight's return from France) as well as being difficult to reconcile with Dwight's joining-the-Navy-and-experiencing-war-for-the-first-time plotline later. I often wondered in the early seasons especially if the screenwriter had actually read the entire series to understand how the changes she was making early on would impact on future developments in later books.

Edited by Llywela
typo
  • Love 1
Link to comment
14 hours ago, Tyro49 said:

One thing I've wondered about since season one is what was the point of replacing George's father with an "uncle"?

George’s Uncle was in the books. It was probably to keep cast numbers at a manageable level that they left out both of George’s parents. In the books IIRC, George’s father - while by no means on the side of the angels - was still able to curb George and Cary’s malice on occasion. 
 

  • Love 1
Link to comment

Adaptations often omit or compress several characters into one for simplicity's sake.  George's parents in the books are mostly background characters who certainly seem pleased enough by George's rising status but aren't really active characters much beyond that.  Uncle Cary is the far more interesting, proactive character of the bunch, the primary difference between the book and show versions is that the book version would have thought much of George's tedious Ross fixation of the first several seasons too silly for acknowledgement, let alone to participate in.  But then book George also has plenty of other things to be focusing on than Ross Ross Ross! all the time too.

  • Love 2
Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...