Comments | rpowell: The Major Problems of “HEAVEN AND HELL: NORTH AND SOUTH BOOK III” (1994)

rpowell

Comments 6

ladybluelake January 4 2011, 17:14:08 UTC

Part of the problem I think is that part two was aired in 1986, part three aired in 1994. Eight years have passed by, the mini-series is not in it's glory like it used to be in the 70's and 80's. Also, as you mentioned the production values were not as lavish as the original. It just did not have that same spark or charm as book 1 & 2 did. Adding characters that weren't even mentioned, such as Orry's brother to the story was mind boggling. It just did not flow, as you mentioned. So I basically agree with you. It would of been a fine mini had it nothing to do with the North & South of the 80's. I never expect adaptions of books to be faithful. That's not a big concern for me but because the screen writers were more faithful to the actual book it totaly screwed up the beloved versions before it. Had Heaven & Hell been adapted to fit more closely to the tv movies before it, maybe it would of been better recieved. Plus, fans that were only familiar with the minis before were devasted by Orry's death. To much time had passed by, you just ( ... )

rpowell January 4 2011, 20:33:51 UTC

I wasn't interested in "HEAVEN AND HELL" "recapturing the magic" of the other two miniseries.

The problem for me is that "BOOK II", which aired in 1986, was the least faithful of all three miniseries. Which caused a lot of problems. Worse, it had more plot holes than the 1985 miniseries and surprisingly, "HEAVEN AND HELL". With its inability to come even close to being as faithful as the 1985 miniseries or the 1994 miniseries, the 1986 miniseries is probably my least favorite of the bunch.

The ironic thing is that John Jakes had served as one of the co-writers for all three miniseries.

ladybluelake January 6 2011, 03:06:52 UTC

Well, keeping the books seprate form the tv series is how I enjoy alot of what I watch. I never expect it to be faithful. I didn't like Heaven & Hell. I just felt that it had no spark, it was flat & dull. I did enjoy the first two series, flaws and all. It's been years since I read the books.

rpowell January 6 2011, 06:53:16 UTC

Well, I guess we have different views of the miniseries. I believe that "BOOK I" is the best. I could say that "BOOK II" was better than "BOOK III", but I can't. Too many plot holes and stiff dialogue makes that impossible for me to do so. And the production values of "BOOK III" makes it impossible for me to view it better than "BOOK II". The only real good miniseries of the bunch was "BOOK I" . . . and that had its flaws.

moxielegal January 5 2011, 09:20:58 UTC

This is always the thing when dramatising a novel, and I'm sure Jakes was probably hamstringed along the way by the production company. I recall picking up on loads of inconsistancies in the first two series - I don't think I bothered with the third, to be honest.

rpowell January 5 2011, 18:11:33 UTC

For me, I have more difficulty watching "BOOK II" than "BOOK III". Yes, its production values are a lot better than the third miniseries. But there are other aspects - aside from it being less faithful to Jakes' books than the other two - that make it my least favorite in the trilogy.