Phew!!!!
Christmas is over, I'm currently on the wagon, and I can't get my act together. There are thousands of things that need doing, and lo! they are not done.
Firstly, Torchwood I cannot believe that inamac got in first with the "The first rule of Torchwood is that you don't talk about Torchwood" quote. Ripping off one of the great movies is bad enough, but doing it badly is far worse. Would someone please kill both Gwen and Owen and replace them with someone more likeable, efficient and less wet.
And Dr Who one wasn't much better. Mind you, I don't like Catherine Tate at the best of times, but I have never seen a more unlikable collection of characters in Who since the days of Colin Baker and Peri. What's more, could anyone make any sense of the plot? If so, would they please tell me where it was hiding? Nice effects on the monster, though she was no Shelob. If Tennant's Who is going to sulk all the way through this season then the sooner he takes the just announced walk the better. Next time, RTD, please pick someone who will stick with the role, not just an actor you happen to fancy!
The Ruby in the Smoke was a lot better. Though Bille Piper is not and will never be my idea of Sally Lockhart, the essence of the story was there and clear, and the rest of the cast were splendid, particularly the guy who played Fred. Jim was possibly too old and too tall, and Rosa not beautiful enough, but on the whole it was efficient ensemble casting. I shall have to go an look at my copy to find out whether the dreadful photography mistakes are original to Pullman or not, though. I suspect not. Still, the best BBC drama this festive season so far.
Finally, Dracula just proved that you really, really should not mess with a decent text. Ruby in the Smoke made a great success of keeping pretty much to the spirit - even the letter - of a fine writer's plot and characterisation. Dracula took a classic and thought they could do better than Stoker. Well, wrong. The changes were unnecessary. Why take Harker and kill him off, but also introduce another character (John?????) to help with his bits. What did the syphilis (oh, bugger, I'm going to have to go and find a dictionary - later) add to the plot? Why turn one of the most spunky heroines in Victorian literature into a screamer, or Lucy into a nympho. Why make Lucy Mina's schoolfriend - it just caused complications? Why make Dracula a sixties slob? What was with Van Helsing? I hate to say this, but Hugh Jackman's version was more realistic. Urggh. I may extend this when I have calmed down a bit.
Firstly, Torchwood I cannot believe that inamac got in first with the "The first rule of Torchwood is that you don't talk about Torchwood" quote. Ripping off one of the great movies is bad enough, but doing it badly is far worse. Would someone please kill both Gwen and Owen and replace them with someone more likeable, efficient and less wet.
And Dr Who one wasn't much better. Mind you, I don't like Catherine Tate at the best of times, but I have never seen a more unlikable collection of characters in Who since the days of Colin Baker and Peri. What's more, could anyone make any sense of the plot? If so, would they please tell me where it was hiding? Nice effects on the monster, though she was no Shelob. If Tennant's Who is going to sulk all the way through this season then the sooner he takes the just announced walk the better. Next time, RTD, please pick someone who will stick with the role, not just an actor you happen to fancy!
The Ruby in the Smoke was a lot better. Though Bille Piper is not and will never be my idea of Sally Lockhart, the essence of the story was there and clear, and the rest of the cast were splendid, particularly the guy who played Fred. Jim was possibly too old and too tall, and Rosa not beautiful enough, but on the whole it was efficient ensemble casting. I shall have to go an look at my copy to find out whether the dreadful photography mistakes are original to Pullman or not, though. I suspect not. Still, the best BBC drama this festive season so far.
Finally, Dracula just proved that you really, really should not mess with a decent text. Ruby in the Smoke made a great success of keeping pretty much to the spirit - even the letter - of a fine writer's plot and characterisation. Dracula took a classic and thought they could do better than Stoker. Well, wrong. The changes were unnecessary. Why take Harker and kill him off, but also introduce another character (John?????) to help with his bits. What did the syphilis (oh, bugger, I'm going to have to go and find a dictionary - later) add to the plot? Why turn one of the most spunky heroines in Victorian literature into a screamer, or Lucy into a nympho. Why make Lucy Mina's schoolfriend - it just caused complications? Why make Dracula a sixties slob? What was with Van Helsing? I hate to say this, but Hugh Jackman's version was more realistic. Urggh. I may extend this when I have calmed down a bit.