MovieChat Forums > Poldark (1977) Discussion > Let's face it, this version

Let's face it, this version

posted 9 years ago by beatabeatrix
54 replies | jump to latest

is the definitive version. I don't mind the new version - I watch it because it is 'Poldark', but it is not at the level of the original series. In terms of the cast, the sense of ensemble, the passion and humour (which the new series is sorely lacking). Many have said that Aidan Turner is the perfect Captain Poldark, and he's not bad, but there were probably many actors out there that could have done better in the role. I was disappointed to read that Debbie Hosfield, the writer of the new series, wrote it for Aidan Turner, thus negating other actors who may have tried for it - one in particular is Richard Armitage. Although from the north, he seems a much better type for Poldark. I'm not saying he would have been better than Aidan, but Aidan seems to lack the stature required for the role. Robin Ellis had that naturally aristocratic, but manly, presence. Clive Francis was the perfect contrast to Robin Ellis, being the fair and sweet aristocrat, who wins Elizabeth but feels his wife doesn't love him once Ross returns. Robin Ellis and Clive Francis also seem to me more like cousins to me, despite the contrast, than in the new series.

For me there is only one Demelza and that is Agharad Rees. Eleanor Tomlinson is good and has grown into the role, but her Demelza is tame and domestic by comparison. Her Demelza doesn't seem capable of living on her wits, whereas Angharad's Demelza had to live off her wits (and her fetching good looks helped as well). When Demelza in the original tries to bring Verity and Blamey together it is not only because she wants Verity to find love, but also to assert herself as a person in her own right. I didn't see that in the new series. My feeling is that Angharad's Demelza is actually closer to the character in the novels. Although Graham's Demelza is a dark-haired brunette, Angharad captured her qualities perfectly.

It was a shame that they did not cast a better Elizabeth in the new series. The point of Elizabeth is that she is the blond aristocratic beauty, admired by all and thus has a character flaw of self-love or vanity, who does love Ross but feels that he may not give her the lifestyle that Francis can. Jill Townsend executed Elizabeth better in this respect.

I could go on….

[–] supergran 9 years ago

I'm posting in my lunchbreak, so this is a bit rushed, but will say two things:

Richard Armitage is far too old at nearly 44!

I love this version of Poldark - have done for 40 years - but the first series took ENORMOUS liberties with Graham's books. Debbie Horsfield has tried to stick closer to the original story, although I have a few reservations about her interpretation.

Will post more later!

If there aren't any skeletons in a man's closet, there's probably a Bertha in his attic.

[–] beatabeatrix 9 years ago

I used Richard Armitage more as an example - to be honest, he doesn't show his age, and I've seen him in the flesh :-). Sadly, I'm not a casting director with scores of male profiles at my fingertips, but I'm sure that there were a number of young British actors who could have been Poldark.

'Enormous' liberties? Do mean that Demelza saying that she'd drop her knickers, or when gets pregnant and returns to her father? Personally, I think that was more realistic - I always got the sense that Demelza said that to try and keep Ross's attention.

I don't feel that Debbie Horsfield's script was that great. I laughed out loud when I heard Ross say that Verity's 'standard of life' would go down if she married Blamey. No one in the late 18th cen. had a concept of 'standard of life'. I may be wrong, but I don't recall the miners calling Captain Poldark 'Ross'; I believed they always called him Capt. Poldark in the books. Doctor Enys calls him Ross. On other things her script is ok. She had to work within the time constraints of only 8 one hour episodes.

The original series captured more of the humanity of Graham's books, imo.

[–] meerschweinchen_freunde 9 years ago

One enormous liberty that the 1975 series took was having Ross stopping Demelza getting an abortion by promising to marry her. That was not in the book at all and I felt that the writers were bringing in 1970s sensibilities onto the 1780s.

[–] supergran 9 years ago

@beatabeatrix

'Enormous' liberties? Do mean that Demelza saying that she'd drop her knickers, or when gets pregnant and returns to her father? Personally, I think that was more realistic - I always got the sense that Demelza said that to try and keep Ross's attention.

@mf

One enormous liberty that the 1975 series took was having Ross stopping Demelza getting an abortion by promising to marry her. That was not in the book at all and I felt that the writers were bringing in 1970s sensibilities onto the 1780s.

We can't minimise the liberties that were taken in this version. As you say, Demelza returns to her father, unknowingly pregnant. When Ross finally gets to learn of the pregnancy, she denies that the baby is his. Then Elizabeth comes to Ross and tells him of Francis' many affairs. Ross asks her to leave Francis and come and live with him. Elizabeth agrees and tells Francis of her intentions. Ross then discovers that Demelza's baby is his and that she is travelling to procure an abortion. Ross chases after her and offers to marry her. Elizabeth is furious.

This was a huge departure from the books, not just in terms of events but in the ramifications that follow and the way it skews motivations. Quite apart from the scandal of Ross stealing his cousin's wife, it causes Elizabeth to be deeply resentful of Demelza. And Ross marries Demelza to make their baby legitimate. The consequences rumble on....

This version of Poldark is one of my favourite period dramas of all time, but it cannot be called definitive when it makes such alterations to Graham's story. Surely? The changes that Horsfield has made pale into insignificance.

If there aren't any skeletons in a man's closet, there's probably a Bertha in his attic.

[–] Flippitygibbit 9 years ago

The changes that Horsfield has made pale into insignificance.

(Just covering all the bases, following Bottlebrush over here!) I'm not sure that Debbie Horsfield's interpretation of the novels can be considered 'insignificant', merely positive (or 'inoffensive') to the negative changes of the first series. How is she going to dig herself out of the 'love of my life' hole, for example? She also has Jinny pregnant so that Jim Carter has to marry her, whereas they are courting perfectly innocently in the novels. Plus there is Mark Daniel the accidental murderer, a rather one-dimensional portrayal of Francis the angry toddler, and Cary Warleggan the evil uncle - the Warleggans are the scapegoats, but George is given a moral safety net, likely so that he will not appear so reprehensible in series two.

Debbie Horsfield is sticking closer to the dialogue of the novels, but she is not entirely free from fault.

"Tony, if you talk that rubbish, I shall be forced to punch your head" - Lord Tony's Wife, Orczy

[–] beatabeatrix 9 years ago

'Love of my life' - yeah, I thought where did that come from? I'm also sorry what they did with the Francis character. I couldn't believe it when he called Demelza a troll. Modern turns of phrase and insults that sound really odd in a period drama.

[–] supergran 9 years ago

Just rushing out, but the line "If he will marry an ignorant trull such as you, then he must take the consequences" comes straight from the book.

Trull = prostitute, harlot, strumpet, trollop. Origin unclear, probably from Old German trulle (loose woman). Circa 1510.

If there aren't any skeletons in a man's closet, there's probably a Bertha in his attic.

[–] beatabeatrix 9 years ago

Oh well, sounded like troll.

[–] supergran 9 years ago

Hi Flip. 

Debbie Horsfield is sticking closer to the dialogue of the novels, but she is not entirely free from fault.

I agree. As I said in my post last Friday, Horsfield HAS made changes. Thanks for reminding me of them, Flip!  The changes aren't as great (IMO) as those made by Jack Pulman, but they ARE significant. You're right.

I'm not an apologist for the new adaptation. I see it's faults. I suppose when I read - shall I say - a slightly dogmatic statement that a particular version is definitive, then I have to jump in in the cause of evenhandedness! Lol.

If there aren't any skeletons in a man's closet, there's probably a Bertha in his attic.

[–] meerschweinchen_freunde 9 years ago

To be perfectly honest with you after reading Warleggan I don't think that Debbie Horsfield has dug herself into a hole when Ross tells Elizabeth to pray for "the love of his life" because she is not a widow yet whose going to marry his worst enemy.

[–] beatabeatrix 9 years ago

Thanks for reminding me of the extra details - I watched 6 hours of the first season of the original over two days to refresh my memory (Vol 1, discs 1 and 2 UK edition!). I prefer the dramatic licence ('enormous liberties') that the original screenwriters took with the story. With all due respect to Winston Graham, a writer who means a great deal to me, his post-war sensibilities seemed to be at work in having Ross marry Demelza immediately upon finding out she is expecting. Now, there is no way that a gentleman of that era would have married his pregnant maid period. So Ross asking Demelza to leave is perfectly in keeping with what would, in realty, have happened. His asking Elizabeth to leave Francis and live with him actually could have happened, notoriously scandalous it may have been. Ross then deciding to marry Demelza in either scenario, does set him apart from his class, but that is what makes him different (and likeable). The resentment between Elizabeth and Demelza is a little stronger in the original, but this is resolved at any rate when Demelza goes to Trenwith to nurse Francis/Elizabeth.

Again, no offence to WG, but the 'We shall have to marry then' in the novel transferred to the new series, resembles something out of a play for children. The original series gave more complexity and depth to both Demelza and Ross.

I wonder what WG would have thought of Demelza ogling Ross taking a dip or scything - these are modern sensibilities imposed on the 1780s!

Regarding the new script/direction - I couldn't believe they used a montage in episode two, I think, when Verity teaches Demelza how to dance - lazy! It's hard to believe anyone would use a montage after Team America ('Gotta have a montage!"). Likewise the 'dream' sequence in the final episode - like something out of a 1960s horror movie. Thank goodness, the original series never resorted to these visual cliches.

To me, the original series is the definitive version - there are only two! (excluding the 1995 TV movie which doesn't count at any rate) unless we all live another 40 years to judge should another one will come along (but I don't think anyone will try again). There's no way that the new series can be considered definitive.

[–] supergran 9 years ago

Hi beatabeatrix. 

I don't want to appear unfriendly, and you are certainly entitled to your views. For 40 years, 1970s' Poldark has been right up there in my top ten of period dramas. I was newly married when I first saw it, and was bowled over by it! Lol.

I'd like to discuss a few of the points raised in your post, if I may. Firstly, you say that WG had Ross marrying Demelza immediately upon finding out she was expecting. In fact, Demelza doesn't get pregnant until after their marriage. Ross has other reasons for marrying Demelza. If anything, those reasons have "more complexity and depth" than Ross marrying to give a child a name.

Turning to the new version, the "dream sequence" actually happens in the book. It takes up five pages! I agree that Demelza ogling Ross is clumsy and gratuitous, but it does at least allow us to see how Demelza is falling in love with her master.

I take issue with your definition of "definitive".  I won't argue with you about it, though.

If there aren't any skeletons in a man's closet, there's probably a Bertha in his attic.

[–] magpieskye 9 years ago

there is no way that a gentleman of that era would have married his pregnant maid period

Well, as Demelza wasn't pregnant prior to marrying Ross in the novel, that is a moot point, but I would like to address the comment "no gentleman of that era."

Ross isn't the typical gentleman of that era. Far from it, in fact. He takes a much broader definition of the term. He has very liberal views about social classes mixing, which he shows by his actions, repeatedly, throughout the novels. In fact, he eventually comes around to the idea of Drake marrying Morwenna, and tries to bring it about (if not for George's interference prevailing while Ross and Drake were in France).

[–] Irish_Moon 9 years ago

I'm watching the 70's version and I'm SO NOT liking it. If I watched it without reading the books....I could. Right now I'm trying to take it for what it is. I may stop watching it and return to it when I'm done reading and I've had some time to get the books and the new Poldark out of my system and take it in differently. At this point it seems like a different story with a few things thrown in from the book. I can see why Winston Graham was upset with it at first. Some of the character aren't even like the book at all. I think if you watch this first.....I can see how you would love it. AND I could have but it's so far from the books right now.....does it start to follow them at all? As far as Tuner.....he's way more like Ross in the book. BUT this doesn't reflect bad on Robin Ellis. He's playing what he written. Tuner's got that darkness down of Ross's.....the brooding. I don't know Demelza is the light to Ross's dark. So far from what I've read it almost like why he needs her......of course I need to read more sooo I may be wrong. I know it's going to get darker so.

[–] Bottlebrush 9 years ago

I have just been rewatching the original series, and I must say that I find it way better than the new version (it's hard to believe it was first broadcast 40 years ago). I think the characters are much better developed in the old version, and all of the 'rustic chorus' is so much more authentic. Most importantly, the characters of Ross and Demelza involve far better acting than the new versions.

Aidan Turner may be a perfectly nice chap, but his acting is rather bland. His look is also all wrong. A gentleman of that time would not look so greasy and swarthy, would shave, and would wear his hair tied back.

I also think the original plot is so much richer and has far more depth – not just when it comes to the characters of Ross and Demelza, but all the others too. And I don't think Demelza would have become a 'lady' as quickly as she has in the new version.

The new version is somewhat without substance, although modern filming techniques have given it a glossy look.

I would add that I haven't read the books, and don't need to – I judge the series by what I see on television.

[–] Venus-25 9 years ago

I've only seen the first two episodes of the new version and while the cast is acceptable I'm not getting that blast of charisma that Robin Ellis gave to Ross in this series. I also think that the supporting cast of this series is more memorable.

And yes, Verity is much more attractive in this series than she is in the books, but the actress in the new series has a disturbing look.

What is really peeving the hell out of me is that George and Francis are dressed out of period. The Regency-period clothes and hair are about 15 years in the future from where the story is now. George takes pains to be "fashion-forward" but this style wasn't even all the rage in France yet.

The Fabio Principle: Puffy shirts look best on men who look even better without them.

[–] beatabeatrix 9 years ago

Agree. I find there is very little chemistry between the new Ross and Elizabeth. Hard to imagine they were once in love.

[–] Venus-25 9 years ago

That may actually work in the series' favor to ultimately point out how wrong she would have been for him.

The Fabio Principle: Puffy shirts look best on men who look even better without them.

[–] omumaomuma5-960-923485 9 years ago

I want to say I disagree with the OP but I can't since I'm partial to glossy productions. I also want to 're-watch the new series but as it is I'm not drawn to it as I expected to. Instead I went on Amazon Prime to buy more episodes of the old series. For a powerful romantic story as written and dramatized, this new version did not match up. I did not hate it but it handled everything ok and yet excelled in nothing in particular - whether it be the Ross/Demelza relationship, the other characters, story-telling, character exploration and depth etc Besides the production value, it doesn't 'do anything' better than this ancient version.

'For His mercies endures forever ' - Psalms

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]

[–] InfoBabe 9 years ago

I wish they would rebroadcast this version. It has one of the most erotic scenes ever on TV. It was between the two leads, no skin but I know I said "whew. " Critics noticed it too, said it was crackling.

[–] wendycscott9 9 years ago

Well, I just want to say, I love the new series, have watched it several times now on the DVDs I purchased, and I was a big fan of the older series, too. I love Aidan Turner as the new Poldark. And I also love Eleanor Tomlinson as Demelza. I own the VHS tapes (which apparently are worth $300 these days!), and have watched them over and over, too. But to conceive of that version as the be-all and end-all of any Poldark production I think is a mistake. This new series has such beauty to it, more gorgeous outdoor scenes, better music, and just looks more realistic and less like a set than the original series. It has much to recommend it and will most likely increase interest in the old series as well. But time marches on, and it's always good to get a fresh interpretation of these novels. The plan is to do six seasons covering the 12 books, and I think that's perfectly wonderful. Aidan has signed up for the next five seasons, so I'm thrilled. I was never inspired to read the books from the old series, but now I am with the new because apparently it is closer to the original story, though not exactly the same, and I wouldn't expect it to be. All together, I think we should be lauding this effort to bring Poldark to a new audience, not whining that it isn't the same. It's been 40 years! It couldn't hurt.

[–] kino66 9 years ago

In comparison to the original, the new version is glossy & superficial. The actors in the original were much better cast than the actors in the new version. Once you've seen Robin Ellis as Captain Poldark, Aidan Turner just doesn't cut it. As a poster above wrote:

Aidan Turner may be a perfectly nice chap, but his acting is rather bland. His look is also all wrong. A gentleman of that time would not look so greasy and swarthy, would shave, and would wear his hair tied back.

This new series has such beauty to it, more gorgeous outdoor scenes, better music

But, I'm not watching Poldark for the "gorgeous outdoor scenes" or the "music". I'm watching because it's a gripping story.

I think we should be lauding this effort to bring Poldark to a new audience, not whining that it isn't the same.

I can't laud the effort when the copy is a poor imitation of the original.

[–] supergran 9 years ago

I can't laud the effort when the copy is a poor imitation of the original.

Okay, I'll take the bait. (Fools rush in...)

The 1970s' version is not the original. It's an adaptation of the books, the same as the latest is an adaptation. Debbie Horsfield had never watched the 70s' adaptation when she wrote her screenplay. She took her story straight from the books and, as such, she was remarkably faithful. Jack Pulman wasn't always true to the books as I have outlined above.

It doesn't have to be a competition. I love the 70s' adaptation (I have posts on this board going back to 2009). One just needs to have an open mind.

If there aren't any skeletons in a man's closet, there's probably a Bertha in his attic.

[–] beatabeatrix 9 years ago

OP here. Kino66 I couldn't agree with you more. I'm not whining and I don't have to laud something I don't particularly care for. As for new people reading Poldark - I'm happy for the Graham family, but it doesn't particularly affect me. And to those championing the new version - I didn't post my message on the new Poldark board because 1) I'm not too interested in the new version 2) I don't want to upset those who like the new version. I come to this board for Poldark 1975.

[–] stumitchumjc 9 years ago

"Beata . . . ", not meaning to "horn in", here, but I have likewise encountered some hostility, too, on "that OTHER Board(!!)", when I've attempted to discuss the ORIGINAL, however oblique. SHAME on them!!

[–] beatabeatrix 9 years ago

I'm not surprised. I find some fans of the new version/detractors of the old, very superficial.

[–] supergran 9 years ago

I'm not surprised. I find some fans of the new version/detractors of the old, very superficial.

Some, but not all. 

If there aren't any skeletons in a man's closet, there's probably a Bertha in his attic.

[–] visualcookie 9 years ago

Some, but not all.

I agree with you sg but I am finding it rather unfortunate that some people feel it is necessary to keep informing everyone that they do not wish to know what is coming up and yet they keep visiting threads where spoilers are a possibility. To be honest I am not enjoying myself there any longer. The constant drooling over Aidan Turner is getting nauseating. Don't get me wrong, I think Aidan Turner seems like a very nice, charming young man and a damn fine actor, but he is younger than my nephew. I have really enjoyed discussing the story and the adaptation but the participation is lessening, so it might be time to take a break from that message board.

I was a fan of the '70s adaptation and I am so glad to see Robin Ellis again. It is tragic that Angharad Rees did not survive long enough to have a part in the new adaptation, it would have been lovely to see her again.

I find some fans of the new version/detractors of the old.

Unfortunately, there are some that are not just detractors of the old version but also of the books. Winston Graham should be proud that he created such wonderfully complex characters that we are still discussing them 70 years after the first book was published.

[–] supergran 9 years ago

I've sent you a PM, vc.

If there aren't any skeletons in a man's closet, there's probably a Bertha in his attic.

[–] MarmaladeT 9 years ago

The "Aidan-Obsession" with some on the 2015 board is quite worrying and I fear some people may need an appointment with their analyst in order to get a grip (imho). Some are so obsessed that I scratch my head sometimes ;-) It's a bit like some are of the opinion the 2015 version is the definitive version and the books should be re-written so that they accord with Debbie Horsfield's screenplay.

[–] visualcookie 9 years ago

Exactly. I love 2015 adaptation, but my first love is the story as it was written.

[–] MarmaladeT 9 years ago

I love the 2015 version too (something I'm very pleased about, because I did fear that I'd hate it) and of course I love the 1975 version (warts and all) but my first love is for the books themselves - I can lose myself in a book and so much more can be expressed by the written word.

[–] visualcookie 9 years ago

Hi MarmaladeT

I posted this on the other board re: "Aidan obsession", I thought it pretty much summed up some of the people there.

https://twitter.com/KimmerleAnna/status/640289409737334784/photo/1

[–] omumaomuma5-960-923485 9 years ago

Lol Visualcookie.....it looks like we both had the same exact experience. I had to tell one particular poster off (and sent her on 'ignore') when she jumped on a post I made comparing both Ellis Ross and Turner Ross. She wanted to correct me and reiterate for the hundredth time why Turner was her ideal. *vomit* The whole thing makes me uncomfortable and I truly despise reading or communing with posters like that. It feels like talking to a mad person disguising as sane *urgh*. It's like every board I like must have one such poster who posts often and with the same sentiment over and over and over...........Just one word about their 'idol' and they respond..............First the 'Downton' board with the n-wolke poster and now that board with certain persons.
Anyway I no longer participate there. I love substantive discussions not fawning over non-existent characters or the people who play them.

'For His mercies endures forever ' - Psalms

[–] parkerzielinski 8 years ago

As "superficial" as you liking the old but hating the new. Are they not entitled to an opinion also, same as you?

[–] giadapazazz 9 years ago

I can understand sentimental loyalty to a series one enjoyed a number of years ago, however, here comes the but ... :)

In the few scenes I've watched, RE plays the role as a pompous patriarch to a childish Demelza. IMO, too much of a similarity to Woody Allen, Soon yi Previn, (married father/step-daughter) to play to most American audiences today.

Although this older series is available at a well trafficked public library in So Cal there has been no interest. Books and the newest series are popular at several local city/county libraries.

As to RE's acting he reminds me if RB, an overdone ham actor ... :)

Aidan Turner performs well, playing a sometimes temperamental man, humanist, and champion of those less fortunate.

[–] supergran 9 years ago

As to RE's acting he reminds me if RB, an overdone ham actor ... :)

Different times, giadapazazz. Productions had more of a theatricality back then. We just accepted it. Lol.

If there aren't any skeletons in a man's closet, there's probably a Bertha in his attic.

[–] stumitchumjc 9 years ago

Hello, everyone. And hello to you too, Super; I haven't forgot you, from my Thread:/Topic: Strange Happenings . . . . It's gonna take a little time, to put together something cogent, and hopefully entertaining; please do be patient. The "suspense" must be "killing" you, and, here's a test of the spoiler function. There, it does work.

Okay, with this "housekeeping" out of the way, let's go all the way back to the 1950's, perhaps before. I'm particularly thinking about, The Ten Commandments, Charlton Heston, and Cecil B. DeMille.

For the sensibilities of the 1950's, this highly ostentatious and hammy acting style, was almost besides the point of this picture. People went to get bowled over by the Special Effects (the Red Sea Parting, done at least 40 years, before CGI!), the giant Widescreen, the Costuming, and, the overall Art Direction. People weren't as concerned with the style of their expression, then, as they are now.

About Mr. DeMille. He always favored this flowery, stilted, almost shouted, hammy approach to dramatization. He also used it in his then-contemporaneous Circus Movie, The Greatest Show on Earth. This style dates all the way beck to the earliest days of the Live Stage, and has stuck around, in the form of those silly, overly-maudlin, overly insipid melodramas that you may find, as a tourist, in various "tourist traps", in the Far West of the United States. You know, the ones where the villain ties the heroine to the railroad tracks. Indeed, this was also the way that Mr. DeMille expressed himself, in his day-to-day living, and, in the administration of his Motion Picture Empire! And, when Billy Wilder was making Sunset Boulevard, he ran over a few speedbumps, dealing with Mr. DeMille--ironically playing himself(!)--to get him to play in a more naturalistic low-key style, to fit in with the rest of the production. Parenthetically speaking, if William Holden (A Yank, no less!) had the Cornish Dialect, down pat, he would have been a viable choice to play Ross, way back in the 1950's, but we'll save that for another day!

Charlton Heston, continuing on the momentum of this picture, used much the same style, in Ben-Hur. Yet in Soylent Green, he used naturalistic expression, the kind most of use with each other, talking face-to-face. SPOILER: Did you all know, in 1980, he played opposite, our Jill Townsend, in, The Awakening? And, Stephanie Zimbalist, played his daughter, I believe! (I think now, that I've gotten the hang of using the Spoiler Block.)

More older productions, obviously, were made in this style, though most Film Noirs used an Ultra-Naturalistic Acting style, to make the "feel" the "atmosphere", of these movies, even more grim and dreadful.

[–] nmadura 9 years ago

can understand sentimental loyalty to a series one enjoyed a number of years ago, however, here comes the but ... :)

In the few scenes I've watched, RE plays the role as a pompous patriarch to a childish Demelza. IMO, too much of a similarity to Woody Allen, Soon yi Previn, (married father/step-daughter) to play to most American audiences today.

Yes, I agree.

The 1970's version is very much a product of it's time both in production style and performances. It is not the definitive version as the only "definitive version" can be the source material. The change in medium from something read to a visual presentation does make changes necessary especially if there are time and budget constraints. The opening theme music is the definition of stereotypical soap opera-ish romantic drama and that is what the screen writers of the 1070's version gave us. It is good for it's time and I can see why it is a classic. But for someone who has no nostalgic ties to it it's not the gold standard but just the first adaptation.

I didn't see the old series in the 1970's, I read/ am reading the books when I heard Aidan Turner was going to play Ross since I knew of him from The Hobbit (and I loved him in Poldark). Then I watched the 2015 Poldark. I'm open-minded and generally view each version on it's own merits. There are things I like about each and there are things I don't like about each.

I find the 1970's version very "stagey". It is like watching a filmed play not real life, at least not for me. Some of that has to do with the production - flimsy sets, technology in that the transition between indoor and outdoor sets was abrupt and takes me out of the story each time. Robin Ellis, to my eyes, played the role very patriarchal and patronizing to Delmelza, actually to a lot of character. His moralizing and self-righteousness could be pompous at times. There was not a tremendous depth of character in evidence. I'm sure he was performing as he was directed and did very well with the scripts as written.

Angharad Rees' Delmelza was childlike and very annoying. What people describe as fiesty, I see as bratty behavior i.e. the kicking and screaming tantrum at Julia's christening, the deliberate asking of a loan from Sir Hugh and Connie (I love Connie B. and miss that character from the new adaptation) after clearly said he wouldn't ask and why and the constant cries of "Ross!". I find her performance histronic. The accent grates on my nerves as it sounds very fake, and I'm no expert, but I wish she didn't even try because if that is an authentic cornish accent I'll go find a tricorn and eat it. Elizabeth is a cold beauty but there is even less explanation or rather absolutely no rational reason that Ross would still have ties of the heart to such a heartless witch than there was in the Book. I did like Clive Francis and think he captured the pathos, pathetic tragic nature of the book Francis. Both Veritys are perfect.

I don't see that there is a competition between the two and think both adaptations can co-exist peacefully along with the source books for the "purists". After all look how many filmed versions of Shakespeare's plays there are (and WG, not matter how good the books are, is not Shakespeare) some may prefer this Hamlet over that one, some were complete rubbish and some don't whether time as well while others are timeless. It doesn't negate the pleasure each viewer can take from each adaptation.

[–] beatabeatrix 8 years ago

The opening theme music from the original series is considered one of greatest themes in television history. When I first heard the theme music from the new one I laughed out loud and said - 'It's the theme from Countryfile!' - this is a weekly show about country matters in England - it's a fine theme tune for Countryfile, but a very mediocre theme for Poldark.

Angharad Rees's accent is far more authentic - her family originated from Wales and she had, therefore, a better sense of the accents of the general area. Elinor Tomilson's accent goes in and out quite a bit. And while I like the little actress who plays Verity, she is all wrong for the role - in S2 episode 2 - when speaking about Truro being crowded she let slip a very common tone/phrase; my husband and I couldn't help but giggle.

Of course the books are the definitive 'version' - no one would dispute that...

[–] GrumpyEuryale 8 years ago

That (the creepy Woody Allen thing)is a problem for American audiences then. And tbh, it's not one that anyone but you has referred to. In the time the story is set, your master was supposed to regard himself as a patriarch. He was supposed to set the moral example for the whole household, not just his family, and would be expected to lead the household in prayer, dole out rewards, punishment and justice. Like a father. Which is why it was held to be so shocking when a master bedded a servant.

As others have pointed out, Ellis's acting is of his time. And it is perfectly fine.

[–] martita-2 8 years ago

Beatabeatrix - I totally agree with you. I gave up watching the new version after a few episodes. It is not only the actors but the whole atmosphere that seem almost alien to the place. And you are right - the casting is not good at all! This version is much, much better. Thanks!