I seriously loved this. Someone remind me again why it's so disliked?

I don't think it is disliked because it is trendy to hate remakes - I actually started a thread stating that I had no problem with remakes if they are good.

I think people didn't like this because there were so many issues with the revised plot, the story was full of clichés, some of the characters were not particularly engaging e.g. Torrence. I wanted it to be good and yes I did give up 3 hours to watch it but it was not great.

I did like the idea that triffids were so important because their oil was now the primary source of fuel but other gaps like how a very brief solar event blinded almost everyone, how society collapsed in a few hours, how everyone had guns, and the Zaire backstory are ill conceived ideas and this has nothing to do with them being in a remake - had the original story had these problems it is unlikely we would be discussing a remake.

Anyway there was no "cold war plot point". There is no definite explanation of the comet/meteor/whatever it was in the book, only a little bit of speculation towards the end. Ditto the triffids.

>>>Because it trendy to hate remakes.

No, that's a cheap and short-sighted assertion. I didn't particularly like it, but that's for two essential reasons - trendiness being neither of them, thank you very much.

1) I can't help but see it in the context of other versions of the story. I've loved Day of the Triffids for a long time, and I certainly don't think that an adaptation has to be the same as the book - actually I enjoy adaptations that change things, provided it's done well (and this version has one or two changes that I thought were rather interesting). But, for me the best parts of the original story were lost in this adaptation. The old BBC serial from the early 80s is fantastic in acting and writing, and is overall much more coherent and sensible than this, with no Hollywood pretensions.

One example is that I thought they rather spoiled the Triffids - I found them terrifying in the book and the TV serial, but in this adaptation they became crude and lumbering, with the emphasis taken off their lethal stings and their sinister rattlesnake clattering replaced with ambient twiddling. John Wyndham's vision tried very hard to be coherent and plausible, but that sense of realism is seriously lost in the new version.


2) Overall I thought it contained too many elements that were improbable, melodramatic, shallow, and misjudged. It felt like the people behind it think that good BBC TV should be patterned after Hollywood values - and this is far from the first time I've seen a BBC production that gave this impression.


Of course, these are only the reasons why I had issues with it. I found it diverting enough, and I don't begrudge anybody else enjoying it, especially if they are then moved to read the book. As adaptations of this story go, I'd place it below the 1980 version, but above the Howard Keel version.

People don't dislike this remake just for being a remake, they hate it because of its poor writing - Outlandish events are presented to the viewers over and over, along with characters behaving daftly and unbelievably.


Here's my little summary of just some of the daftness:-

1) Torrence (Eddie Izzard) waking up in a passenger plane careering thought the air. He doesn't ask a single question about why the plane is in trouble. Instead he just gets into a cubicle and fills it with inflatable vests. Wouldn't we all?

2) The plane then happens to crash land (in all the world) right next to/on top of the lead characters. Wow! What a coincidence!

3) In a crazy moment, equalling Indiana Jones surviving an a-bomb by jumping inside a fridge, Izzard comes out of a plane crashing into a city at X hundred miles an hour, alive, with stupid looking comedy character with a blacked face, clothes in tatters and trouser legs ripped and missing (a chiney sweep?). Were the writers drunk? Could this possibly happen? Really?

4) Jo (the news lady) comes out of the underground (which had collapsed because of Izzards plane), wonders around for a minute or two before bumping into our hero and proclaims, "I thought I was the only one"? What in the 2 minutes you've looked love?

5) Our hero and news lady go to the Triffid farms, and off they go into the middle of the farm for no reason other than to risk their lives.

6) At the triffid farm, where X hundreds/thousands of triffids were, they've escaped and killed everyone there. Not a SINGLE triffid is still there even just by random, or sitting by the person it had killed, feeding - in the end that's why the Triffids kill, they sit there feeding on the corpse for X days or weeks... But no, these new Triffids have other agendas, like getting out of the way of our heroes so they don't appear in the episode too soon.

7) We now have ninja tree climbing triffids attacking from the air and scooping folks up off the ground below. Why were they up in these particular trees? Nesting for the night?

8) Why cart Mason and Coker mile and mile away in the back of a truck to then kill them? What's wrong with a back alley? Other than to allow the Triffids to get involved?

9) When Coker throws a bunch of papers out of the plane he's in, they all fall X hundred feet down through the air and land at the feet of our heroes? Wow! Good shot! Laser guided paper!

10) At Bill Mason's father's house, why do Torrent's men all just stand by the fence waiting to be attacked one by one by the triffids. My guess is simply because the script says for them to do that because they're not longer needed.

11) Furthermore, surely driving out of the triffid surrounded house in a one and a half tonne vehicle might have been a good means to survive the triffids?

Sometimes it's because people lack imagination and they want stories spelt out to them. Personally I think DoT is engaging and well-made.

I suppose if they spent extra time developing the characters and explaining plot points to people without imagination, others would complain that it was too boring or "it dragged out"; it's fiction and if people had an imagination of their own they could fill in the gaps where the story didn't elaborate. On the flip side, if Masen and Jo jumped into bed with each other at every opportunity, the army were blowing Triffids up left right and centre, swearing like troopers, people would complain it was too action driven and "Hollywood".

If it was too much like the book, then you could accuse the makers of lacking imagination and producing a clone that adds nothing to the original. This adaption modernises the story somewhat and throws in some current issues ie: genetic modification, factory farming techniques and green technologies. Others complain that the original adaptions were better than this remake. If people see one adaption, they base there opinion against that. "It's not the same as the one I liked!" they complain. That's because it's different, go watch the original then.

Then of course, there is the group of "Comic Book Store Guy" types (see "The Simpsons") who critique everything with extreme bias. I think this should be a 7 - 7.5 not a 6 but to some people it will never be the clone of the book or grandads 1960s/ dads 1980s version they wanted. But you know what? I couldn't care less.

[deleted]

Oh agreed - I'm not much of a Sci-Fi fan myself. There was one thing that I kept wondering the whole time; was about how Jo had not lost her sight.. I mean, did they show the car crash? I don't know, it was just a bit confusing. I was left there thinking "Huh?! But they didn't... She was just laying there!". Haha, oh well, maybe I'll have to watch it again.

I know people were worried about what the triffids would look like - fake, or odd looking..etc. They were kind of exciting looking though :)

Haha, yes agreed! I did find myself laughing quite a lot at a few scenes, because of the sheer silliness!

If there are really bigger worries in life why are you on an internet forum devoted to discussing tv and film dramas?
I have more important things in life, nevertheless I actually enjoy discussing TV and film, and if I see something wrong or don't enjoy a programme or film, I want to discuss with others why I didn't enjoy it.

All this 'if you don't like it, don't watch it', 'don't take it so seriously', 'don't dare come on a discussion forum and actually discuss things' is getting really tired.

She's really Tyler Durden/Keyser Soze/A Man/A Ghost/Dreaming/His sled

"Gives some people with very little of value going on in their lives some sense of meaning."


best. post. ever

"We are all Human beings and Human's are stupid and annoying" Hahaha, that is rather true isn't it! Couldn't agree more with what you've said.