Oliver Twist ....again


Why oh why are they doing another version of Oliver Twist ? It s so pointless !!

reply

Good cast though.

reply

[deleted]

I did not bother watching the Polanski version but still, the TV version is still fresh enough in my mind and I think it stupid that they feel the need to do another one.

For petes sake, can't they think up any new ideas or at least stories that haven't been adapted in the last decade?

Stupid and pointless indeed!

If you love Satan and are 100% proud of it copy this and make your signature!

reply

[deleted]

[deleted]

The best version that I have seen is the 1999 version written by Alan Bleasdale: http://uk.imdb.com/title/tt0222608/. Bleasdale invented a back-story for Oliver's mother which helped fill in the gaps that Dickens left about Oliver's origins. Robert Lindsay as Fagin, played partly as a magician, and Marc Warren as an epileptic Monks with a domineering mother (played by Lindsay Duncan) were outstanding and gave truly electrifying performances.

This 2007 version is nearly as good but suffers from the BBC's tendency, as with Bleak House, to have rather intrusive sound effects and music at times. But I've only seen one episode so far. Ask my opinion again after I've seen all five parts.

reply

Oooh the 1999 (was it really so long ago?) version was excellent and it was the first time I had seen Marc Warren and I have watched everything he has been in since. Hummm, I like Julian R-T but I am unsure if Warren can be beaten in the reinventive stakes.

I shall have to wait and see....

If you love Satan and are 100% proud of it copy this and make your signature!

reply

I certainly agree with your comments about the soundtrack-it's appalling and just does not fit. Some of the performances are caricatures but lets wait until all of it has been seen.
an unnecessary addition to the film archive

reply

by - martinu-2 on Tue Dec 18 2007 13:31:26

"The best version that I have seen is the 1999 version written by Alan Bleasdale: http://uk.imdb.com/title/tt0222608/. Bleasdale invented a back-story for Oliver's mother which helped fill in the gaps that Dickens left about Oliver's origins."

I second this choice and wonder the following:

1. Does ANY story need to be filmed 25 times?

2. Has any other story been filmed so much and so often--more than once with two adaptations in one year? Is this a record?

reply

[deleted]

Indeed, yet another television version.

Why do they bother? The 1948 film can never be bettered, nor even approached in all round quality.

I have seen brief tv trailers for this series, they have been shown incessantly, and for once I was glad of them because they have saved me the trouble of watching.

reply

Why do they bother? The 1948 film can never be bettered, nor even approached in all round quality.
I'd say that the 1999 Robert Lindsay version by Alan Bleasdale is equally as good - and better in some ways because of the Monks and Fagin performances and Bleasdale's back-story.

reply

Slightly OT I know, but David, I find it slightly odd that a sixty year old man feels the need to watch a show just to admire pretty boys.

Bit on the yuck side actually.

If you love Satan and are 100% proud of it copy this and make your signature!

reply

[deleted]

The way Cruikshank drew him in the book he was rather a plain lad - but film and TV portrayals tend not to get too hung up on authenticity. This adaptation at least upheld that tradition. Indeed it surpassed it, taking outrageous liberties with the original story - the "aesthetic Oliver" being the least of its problems.

As to William Miller's acting, I thought it was rather good - truly outstanding, if compared against this production's unbelievably colourless Dodger.

reply

[deleted]

Actually, I read your profile (and some of your past postings).

You wrote that you were sixty, I have not yet reached such an exhaulted age, I like looking at interesting faces, some classically good looking, some not so much.

It might be entirely innocent I am certain, but such an open expression of the beauty of pre-pubescent boys in an (dare I say it) late middle-aged man is something I find a tad 'off' or at least odd.

Just something that stuck out so I commented, I am not having a go.

If you love Satan and are 100% proud of it copy this and make your signature!

reply

[deleted]

I most certainly have not confused you with anyone else and I notice you have just deleted your profile in which you say that you are now 60 years old.

Reading through your past posts it is quite clear to me that your interests do not extend much further than young boys, which is not something I really wish to read on the IMDb.

Were you a 11 year old girl it might be acceptable but it is quite unnacceptable in an old man and I am quite certain it is against the TOS of the website.


I have just read through the TOS and they are quite loose regarding what they think is obscene so I think you might be in luck, though I feel that you are quite disingenuous when you say that your interests in children compares to telling a mother that her baby is cute.

For example, when you said here
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm2136206/board/thread/77883129?d=77883129#77883129

That you wanted to 'be with (this boy) and be his true friend' you would have been a grown man in your 30's.
Do you really think that is appropriate?



If you love Satan and are 100% proud of it copy this and make your signature!

reply

[deleted]

Right, I am getting a bit confused because some of the replies keep disappearing and re-appearing, all I can say is, it is surprising how someone can so staunchly defend their position and then delete their whole profile.

If it was the administrators of the forum, than all I can say is 'thank you' at least it was not in my mind, sometimes you can be made to feel like you are over-reacting but those posts made me feel uncomfortable.

A middle aged mans posting history made up almost entirely of how 'lovely and enticing' young boys are, really made me queasy.

If you love Satan and are 100% proud of it copy this and make your signature!

reply

Hi anatja who is the guy who seems to be intrested in young male cast members as all his posts seem to have been deleted. On this one i can see your point but than I find Billy Elliot and what it is that has made it popular with some adult males a degree disturbing.

reply

I don't know him, everything is gone, I suppose it was the admin who removed him. His posting history was obsessed with boys.

I had only noticed him because he said that he did not think that this Oliver was as good as some other Olivers but he would continue to watch it so he could admire his (William Miller's) 'pretty face'. I thought that was quite an odd thing to write for someone signing themselves off as David (had it been a 12 year old girl I would not have noticed) His profile said he was 60, when I pointed that out he deleted it, next thing I know the whole lot was gone but his posting history was 100% boy orientated, from Mark Lester and Aled Jones to 'Death in Venice'.....

Just brought out the ewww factor in me.


If you love Satan and are 100% proud of it copy this and make your signature!

reply

[deleted]

paperboy73, I think the phrase you are looking for is, "De gustibus non est disputandum."

It must be frustrating to be faced with such intolerance, but bigotry cannot be countered with abuse. Telling someone to disappear up their own backside isn't going to help them become more enlightened.

reply

[deleted]

Paperboy your account was created on 30th December so its perfectly obvious that you are the 60 year old perv who was talking about young boys 'pretty faces'who deleted their profile and created a new one because know one would ever stick up for someone like you!
I am with Anita I find such behaviour perfectly disturbing what else are you looking up on the internet? I have a young brother and the thought of men like you makes my skin crawl!!
Nice try at attempting to turn the whole situtation around to try make anita look like the one in the wrong but unfortunately for yourself it didnt work and the only person who needs to get some help is you!!
I will also report you to imdb personally and to the police because there is far to many sick people in this world getting away with disgusting behavior like this!

reply

I tend to think of numerous film remakes of literary classics like a revival of a play. A new cast/crew always has a different take and I enjoy the little differences in each one. When you consider how long and detailed the books are, there is always something new to add or something else that's left out. I really enjoyed reading Oliver Twist and I always look forward to a new version. The same goes for Huckleberry Finn, Treasure Island, other Dickens, Jane Austen, & King Arthur. I wish someone would remake Willa Cather's My Antonia. While I can say my preferred versions of Huckleberry Finn & Treasure Island, it is very difficult to say which versions of Oliver Twist I prefer because I really have enjoyed each of them for very different reasons. (Treasure Island's best would have to be the early '90s Charlton Heston/Christian Bale version and of Huckleberry Finn, I'm partial to the 1985 TV version and the '93 Disney version)
I'm looking forward to finally getting to see this Oliver Twist.

"it's sad that we weren't born like horses & sheep, to know where we’re going, to know what we need" -Melanie

reply

And why does a screenwriter think she needs to write whole new hunks of dialog on behalf of one of the greatest writers in the English language? And put in fart and buttock jokes?

And what's with the electric guitar and banjo in the music?

A poorly conceived and weakly executed adaptation from the director who gave us the recent misbegotten version of WUTHERING HEIGHTS.

Bring back the version from the late 90s. Even Polanski was OK, for a shortened version.

reply

Okay, I've got to agree, there are some pretty odd changes. I do still like seeing various different versions, though.

"it's sad that we weren't born like horses & sheep, to know where we’re going, to know what we need" -Melanie

reply

There is a lot of money to be made in selling boxed sets.

This is the most often dramatized of Dickens' novels. I thought it would be "A Christmas Carol," but that's what I read somewhere. When "Uncle Tom's Cabin" was published it sold 5M copies. But there were only 25M people in the North and 20M in the South at the beginning of the Civil War, and the book was banned in the South. So if there are five people per household, every house had one. I think they could hardly believe what people were experiencing right under their noses, but in a separate world, and it's the same thing in London at the time people believed in "the criminal class."

You would think this version would be better, rather than just grinding them out to make money. It's interesting to compare the Fagin characters. The Nancy character was very well written and/or acted.

reply

I wouldn't trust anything by Polanski, so I'm definitely not surprised at their attempt for a better version in that regard. However, I AM sick of their new tendency to reproduce classics OVER AND OVER again. I can't believe they're trying a new Tess of the D'urbervilles, when A&E so recently did a version that could never be bettered. And Sense and Sensibility? Please! Nothing and no one can replace TriStars' version, anymore than you could replace A&E's Pride and Prejudice. And their new version of Wuthering Heights?? UGHHHH! Total sacrilege. Nobody can ever measure up to Ralph Fiennes. Deal with it, BBC, and move on. You already have irreplaceable classics like Rebecca, Great Expectations, David Copperfield, Cousin Bette, and yes Oliver Twist. Be happy with that.

reply

Dickens books are out of copyright and the BBC will just adapt them every few years with a new take on the story.


Its that man again!!

reply