MovieChat Forums > Rich Man, Poor Man - Book II (1976) Discussion > Book 2 Error...

Book 2 Error...

posted 17 years ago by g_mcoll
10 replies | jump to latest

I hope Universal have edited the error that was made at the start of "Book 2" where the year 1963 was imposed on the screen stating it was the year of Tom's death - the original mini-series (Book 1), as we all know concludes in the year 1965!!

The action soon begins 'Five Years later' in "Book 2" which should initially make it set in about 1970.

I can't see how Universal could have made this silly error in "Book 2" of stating that Tom died in 1963(?!)....anyway, it might be ironed out especially for Monday's DVD release.

However, I'm thoroughly looking forward to purchasing this classic sequel.

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] g_mcoll 17 years ago

They haven't corrected the error - according to this series Tom died in 1963!!!

Uhhh?!

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] g_mcoll 17 years ago

Last time I saw it was when I was a young boy but I can't ever remember these type of errors and how much it had turned into a type of action series.

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] jonchopwood 13 years ago

The original mini-series ended in either 1965 (the last year given in a title card onscreen, other than "Six Months Later" on the final title card) or 1966.

It wasn't an "error" -- they simply restarted the series by backing it up. They wanted to set it in the critical year 1968 (an election year) and wanted Tom's son Billy to be 18, so they simply titled the last episode on the miniseries as 1963 rather than 1965 or '66.

It's kind of irritating.

It's part of the sloppiness that makes Book II vastly inferior to the original miniseries. And a reason why Peter Strauss quit at the end of Book II.

[–] tony.marshall2 12 years ago

I think the title card of '1965' was kept onscreen at the start of the final episode of 'Book I' for syndication purposes - incase a channel would only be granted the rights to screen the first series(?), therefore it would play as a standalone production separate to 'Book II'.

However, when viewed together with 'Book II' and treating the final episode of 'Book I' as '1963' it does appear to flow a lot better with the subplots in the story. Therefore, I thought the writers on 'Book II' had done a remarkable job in adapting this series.