MovieChat Forums > Great Expectations (2012) Discussion > Absolutely dire. ( SPOILER )

Absolutely dire. ( SPOILER )

posted 12 years ago by minifie-1
13 replies | jump to latest

Nice lensing and three or four good performances but this woman,who messed about with Nolly Twist has filleted the book,cutting key characters such as Biddy ( and the wonderful Aged P) and the comedic element which also comments on Pip's snobbery (the Wopsles,Trabb's boy) given us a self-immolating Havisham who moves and talk like a robot in the headlights and messed about with relationships in the book. (Molly is a murderess,not a woman who slapped Compeyson. ) Even Maggie Wadey couldn't have done a worse hatchet job. Let's hope the Beeb can redeem themselves with 'Edwin Drood'. The 1999 version kept all the key elements of the book so why was it thought necessary to come up with this travesty?

[–] laurendorward-990-190608 12 years ago

Heartily agree, absolute pile of steaming turd. She needs to stick to eastenders and leave classic literature well alone. Also, the boy playing Pip should stick to modelling. He was simply dreadful...I don't know whose voice annoyed me more, his robotic monotones, or Anderson's squeek, which reminded me of a poor imitation of Queenie from blackadder, mixed with Violet from Just William, I half expected her to shout "I'll scweam and scweam till i'm sick", Shocking. Drood, just from the trailer does look better and it's a BBC4 production so will not be targeted for the audience they were trying for with this.

[–] janey187 12 years ago

Gillian Anderson was badly miscast as Miss Haversham and the whole production struck me as rushed and uneven. Also, although I can understand the thinking behind the subdued lighting, half the time I couldn't make out what was happening as gloomy figures fumbled around in the dark. I stuck with it but found myself clock watching as I waited for this tedious drama to come to an end.

I will always be on the side of those who have nothing - F G Lorca

[–] CryptMistress 12 years ago

Oh my gosh, I just watched a bit of the third episode, and just....WOW! They cut out one of the best moments that was in the book: Pip's illness. I mean, I don't like Pip being sick, but I loved in the book when Joe came to take care of him and even paid off Pip's debts. Now, all we get is a reunion at the forge, and then Pip is suddenly at Satis House. I know its not my place to judge, having seen only little of episode 2 and 3, but at least the 1999 miniseries has, from what I've seen, kept all key elements the same. I'm just hoping people who want exposure to "Great Expectations," do not start with this adaptation because they will be in for a surprise when they compare the series and the novel. I also hope that the film being released next year will be much better.

Lilly Scott-The American Idol of 2010!

[–] pjglynndoora 12 years ago

I thought the ending of the third episode was rather abrupt

[–] CCsito 12 years ago

This version ended very differently from the novel. The Satis House was gone at the end of the novel. The reunion between Pip and Estella at the end is also very different in the novel. This version makes it appear that they are going to be together again which is not how it ended in the book. The 1970s version that I have seen stayed more closer to the book.

[–] CCsito 12 years ago

I have seen three versions of Great Expectations and the others are more faithful to the novel than this version.

[–] Rock_C 12 years ago

I couldn't agree more. I really disliked this but continued to watch hoping that something would redeem it though, sadly, that wasn't the case. As far as casting is concerned, I liked their choices for the roles of Joe and Magwitch but REALLY disliked Gillian Anderson's portrayal of Miss H (a surprise as I usually enjoy her performances).

Although it's a long time since I read it, I thought that this adaptation deviated a lot from the book and the posts here have confirmed that. I can understand cutting sub-plots or lesser characters for reasons of length but not why people feel they must make other, significant changes to a perfectly good story for no obvious reason. (I'm not thinking solely of Great Expectations but the treatment of classics in general - some versions of 'Jane Eyre' make me despair.)

******************************************
Laura, it's getting away from us again!

[–] Prismark10 12 years ago

With Great Expectations being a lengthy book and adapted so many times, it is only right that any adaptations takes liberties and this has been true of other Dickens books in the past.

Its that man again!!

[–] Rock_C 12 years ago

I guess it depends on how you define "taking liberties".

I recognise that steps must be taken to shorten a long book for an adaptation so can understand that lesser characters or sub-plots might be cast aside. But I take a dimmer view of such tampering as: fundamental changes of story; major changes to a character's story or behaviour (e.g. the introduction of things that are completely out of character); and things that jar with the time period. Where does one draw the line in terms of adapting a story versus adding a disclaimer like "Inspired by..."?

******************************************
Laura, it's getting away from us again!

[–] greenegg 12 years ago

Oh, please! GE is not such a long novel; the number of adaptations signifies nothing. Every production must respect the original text, if it hopes to succeed. This odious waste of time should never have been produced. From start to finish, it was a piss-poor production. The "adaptation" seems to have been written by some semi-literate dolt who understands nothing of the subtleties of great literature, let alone of story-telling. Leaving out or altering important characters never works, unless one aims one's productions at the seemingly short-attention spans of the texting generation. Cobbling together too many of the original novel's key scenes/events results in terrible productions, such as this version of GE. The casting also seemed dreadful, aside from Jaggers.

The fine 1999 production managed to include all the key details in approximately four hours, while building the story arc with care and precision. I've owned that version for years and never cease to enjoy watching it. I cannot abide the rushed, choppy way so many modern adaptations proceed. Why bother to create a new version that bears so little resemblance to the novel?

Put puppy mills out of business: never buy dogs from pet shops!

[–] Chancery_Stone 12 years ago

Every production cuts a lot and messes with the story line and characters, becuse it's film and because times and fashions change. This production was no worse for alterations and a damn sight better at sticking to what mattered in the story rather than making sure it has all the requisite "well-loved" characters and comedic moments. What you really don't like is that this production broke the rules and didn't deliver all the Dicken's stereotypes you've come to expect.

It was an excellent, innovative, original drama and managed to pull off the most amazing feat of all - breathing new life into a tired old story.

Author of The DANNY Quadrilogy, and all-around genius.

[–] Charlot47 8 years ago

Instead of breathing new life, the incompetent and illiterate script killed the story. It will however outlive both this ham-fisted and insensitive adaptation and your facile opinion.

[–] Chancery_Stone 8 years ago

Without people making new & inovative adaptations of Dickens he would cease to be read. Your belief that he would continue to be a viable author without them is the only facile opinion here.

Author of The DANNY Quadrilogy, and all-around genius.