The BBC have announced that they are working on a new version of John Wyndham's science fiction classic, The Day of the Triffids.

The new version will be shown in two feature length instalments next year, and it will be set in London and the South East in the year 2011.

You can read more about this here: Triffids returning to television.

I'm in two minds about this, part of me is really excited, but another part is worried by the "fast-paced, futuristic and electrifying take" line in the above article.

Triffids just isn't an action story, and the plants themselves aren't really the focus, they are there as a plot device to help facilitate the breakdown of society story.

Also, it's going to have to be good to beat the 1981 adaptation!

Hope it's good. Probably won't be.

I only have faith in this as it’s a BBC production, even in spite of that “fast-paced, electrifying” line. Producers seem to feel that everything needs to be fast, shaky, loud, and more violent than is necessary. If this were a Hollywood feature, no doubt it would go down the shitter hot on the heels of War of the Worlds and our imminent exposure to the bollocks that is The Day the Earth Stood Still. But if they stick to the story, and, as you say, keep that as the focus, rather than just have Triffids that are fast, shaky, loud and more violent than is necessary, then it should come out the other end a watchable piece of television.

I don't really see the point of a ''fast-paced, electrifying'' adaptation since that basically describes what 28 Days Later was.

Other than that, I'm always hopeful about adaptations of Wyndham's work and I'm interested in seeing how this turns out.

Also, not to reopen an old wound, but the Spielberg version of War of the Worlds is two-thirds ace.

So true! I was about 8 or 9 years old when that came out, & it was very scary! I only ever saw it once, but I remember a lot of it because it was so well done.




Agreed. I liked it.


Feel the love.
dolfyn.

I can still hear them!

Blasphemy.

The screamy little bitch should've died. Then it'd've been worth sitting through just for that.

There should'veb een more actual fighting as well, the next time they remake one of these things they should go all out 18 certificate blood and gore-ness. That's what we need, not some 11 year old blonde bint screaming and whining for three hours whilst her dad looks all broody and hurt because his son fucked off to get where the action was.

Spielberg version of War of the Worlds was an alright film, wasnt brilliant, I thought the story lost out to CGI and Cruise's wage packet. If Auntie Beeb are considering bringing it (Triffids) back then I suggest doing it with unknown actors and with a legimately sound script, not reliant on computer fx.

BBC Press Release Gives Further Information.



Hmm . . .

'Hmm' indeed Raven.

The person who wrote that has watched, what, 5 minutes of the 1981 version?

Sounds like someone from marketing has been let loose with a buzz word generator!

And only read the back cover of the book. I think I might have a read through now I'm in the mood.

The book is one of the first adult books I can remember reading after getting out of my Roald Dahl phase. I read through it so quickly and loved it. I haven't read it since and this has made my mind up to do it now. You're right though, it isn't an action book and by reading that they seem to have lost a lot of the point. We shall see how it pans out and I will watch it but I'm a bit nervous.

Double Post, Sorry.

Really? The fact the beeb are making it is one of the things that makes me think it's going to be awful. BBC science fiction has been apalling for a while now. They try to do it on a budget, and appeal to the lowest common denominator, and it always seems to get in the way of making high quality productions.

Lowest common denominator demographic = crap low-brow production. Every time.

Feel the love.
dolfyn.

Why the love affair with man-eating plants?

Echoing comments I've seen elsewhere on the net, one of the replies to the above is:



To which someone called Erik replied:



Fair enough



More of the same really



Yep



Oh dear . . . And he was doing so well!

It looks like the BBC have lined up a pretty impressive cast for this.

Dougray Scott will take the lead as Bill Mason, with Vanessa Redgrave, Joely Richardson, Eddie Izzard, Brian Cox and Jason Priestley (what?!) all cast in other parts. My guess is that Richardson will be playing Josella, but past that who are the others going to play?! I can see Brian Cox playing Coker, Torrance or Michael Beadley - if they are keeping any of those characters.

More information here: Redgrave set for Triffids remake.

That is a good cast. It's so long since I read it that I can't really remember the characters past the main couple and the little girl. Every time the remake is mentioned reminds me that I should re-read it.

Jason Priestley to play the sighted leader of the skin heads who shoot at Bill and his group of blind people, who then years later turns up to try and take the farmhouse away.

Gary Olson played him in the 1981 BBC version.

Would an American 'name' play someone so unsympathetic?

From the BBC Press Release:

The confirmed cast list includes:

Dougray Scott as Bill Masen;
Joely Richardson as Jo Playton;
Brian Cox as Dennis Masen;
Vanessa Redgrave as Durrant;
Eddie Izzard as Torrence and
Jason Priestley as Coker.

I kind of had a suspicion that Izzard might end up as Torrance, but Jason Priestley as Coker?!

I know Priestley was older than the role that made him famous but he's still ridiculously young to be Coker, IMHO.

And will he do an accent?

I wouldn't have said 40 was too young for Coker.

I know, it's just me showing my age. Preistley is around my age, and I don't count myself as a grown up. Coker was very much a grown up.

The only thing I have to say in favor of this is at least it doesn't star Will Smith. The go to man for bludgeoning Sci-Fi.
The very idea of making Day of the Triffids "Fast paced" completely misses the point of the book which is altruism always triumphs in the end. John Windem always has a very old school stiff upper lip attitude to apocalypse (the Kraken awakes was the same). Windem is unique in his view of what more ignorant authors refer to as the "Safe Apocalypse". His heros aren't some macho American running around saving the world. They're ordinary down to earth people who use common sense and comradery to survive. It wasn't a wise cracking one man army that got us through the Blitz. It was Vera Lynn.
Coker was a cockney geezer! Why not have Don Cheedle play him since we're casting Americans. F@<k the Beeb. Their heads are up their @rs3s.
Quote "It is billed as a "fast-paced, futuristic and electrifying take" on Wyndham's work.

Julie Gardner, head of drama at BBC Wales said: "We're hoping to attract a legion of new fans as well as give nightmares to a new generation of viewers."

Read: We want sell a gimmik to the Chav generation so we're going cut out social morales that might be over their heads and make it a bit more Bling.

I reread it the other week and I think a lot of this is part of the satire on the British class system of the time and the 'harking back to Empire' attitude and Blitz spirit in the face of nuclear holocaust where one could be expected to survive on tins of spam as they learn to do the jobs of the working classes.

I don't see it as being an intentional satire. Considering when this book was written and that other Wyndham books are in the same vein.
He openly puts down the Christians in the church who follow a lost cause taking care of the blind and the general in the University but I wouldn't call it a satire.

Which was the very same logic she applied to new Who.

Cue Billy Piper.

...or perhaps not.

Kev W

I wouldn't call Triffids a satire either, it is a work of its day, nothing more. If it had been written today then yes, it would be satirical, poking fun at a now vanished view of Britain and it's place in the world, but it was first published in 1951 and it is very much of that time. The period setting of Wyndham's novels has always been part of their attraction for me, I wouldn't want to turn the clock back to the fifties, but I do find a lot of the cold war rhetoric and "plucky British establishment" elements highly amusing.



How does Gardner's comment equate to dumbing the story down for Chavs?

All she is saying is that Triffids caused a big stir when it was shown in the eighties and they are trying to replicate that success again today (and I hope they manage it, although I too am concerned about the "making it faster paced" remarks, because that is one thing the novel is not).



I haven't seen any evidence of that, in fact I would argue that New Who questions social morality every bit as much as the original series, if not more (it may not be to everyones liking, but I wouldn't agree that it has been dumbed down).

It's pretty universally sited as a satire. If it's not an examination of post-war Britain's attitude to nuclear war then it's very silly indeed.

You can accept the chavs remark as being entirely flippant. I was just stating a point that just becuase some demographic shows "Fast paced" is popular with modern adaptations of Sci fi written half a century ago doesn't mean it's a necessity (I am legend is a perfect example).

As for it being a satire. There are certainley satirical elements but I think it's intention was a little more enviromentalist. Mess with nature and it will come back on us. The whole mysterious meteor shower being caused by a satelite weapon is a warning about science going to far and blowing up in our face. A point that reoccurs in the Kraken awakes which has ominous allusions to the effects of global warming decades before such enviromental issues had been discovered albeit the rising seas in the novel were caused by extra terrestials but the resulting effect on the world will be the same.

Either way you're getting caught up on the Vera Lynn statement. My point is, the book is not fast paced. It spans over a couple of years and in the after math of the fall of London it is the level headed, cooperative Bill who survives not the militaristic or oportunistic Torrence. this book has important social points (which for me the 80's TV version upheld). I worry that it will be dumbed down and lose that for the sake of thrills and scares. Nothing is scarier than mans missmanagement of a crippled society.

That doesn't make it a satire though, Wyndham isn't sending up or ridiculing the attitudes of the time, he is expressing the very real fears people had about both nuclear weapons and the possibility of satellite technology.

Having read the novel a number of times over the last twenty years, the only satire I would say is in the book is the lampooning of "well-to-do young girls" when Wyndham is fleshing out Josella's back story.

First promo picture, that I have seen anyway!

Looks a bit "fan made" does that.

I wonder if this is going to make it onto our TV screens before the end of the year?

For anyone who is interested, this has been pushed back to 2010, according to the production company's web site.

Really? Balls, I read last night that it starts between Xmas and New year. Ah well, sure it will be worth the wait!

As it was originally slated for this year, my guess would be that this will air early next year now, but the only information I've been able to find when looking is that the promo image on the production company's web site has changed from 2009 to 2010.

ETA:

UK TV Guide (never heard of it before!) is claiming that it is airing on the 28th and 29th at 9pm (two 90 minute epsiodes).

Finger's crossed!

We'll know for sure quite soon, I'm sure the times of everything over xmas will be confirmed this week, if not already.

EDIT: Well, google comes up trumps. Clicky.

This link has times for a whole bunch of shows, including day of the triffids. No sign of part 2 though.

Clips and photos About what you'd expect from the BBC, although this picture comes very close to making me not want to watch at all.

I'll be watching no matter what. Mainly due to the fact that I love Mr Izzard more than I love some relatives
He is lickable. Plus great story, fingers crossed it rocks.

Ax

Well that was pretty much a crock of shit.

I'm only 20 minutes in and I'm already thinking that. Looks like I made the right decision to watch the Quentin Crisp thing.

Wasn't too great was it. It did pick up a bit by the end of the episode though.

I have a feeling that this was meant to be a six 30 minute episode series but has been stuck together at as two, hour an a half episodes??

This gave me odd dreams last night.

I agree that it picked up at the end. I liked it, but it was paced slowly though, should have compressed it to an hour. Tonight's episode looks better though.

Both this and Doctor Who (which I also thought was good) seem like they'll both have superior second episodes, with the first one setting everything up.

It's been a very bad adaptation so far . . .

Watching the first episode (15 min left). It's OK, quite slow, but I'm enjoying it more than Survivors.

I finally got around to watching part two of this last night.

Oh dear . . .

What a dreadful waste of time and money.