Remake
-
Archived from the IMDb Discussion Forums — And Then There Were None
harryharman1996 — 10 years ago(November 26, 2015 05:29 AM)
A while back, I wrote a script for an updated adaptation of And Then There Were None. I wrote it purely for fun, with no desire to push it further. It's actually a lot of fun working with an already-written, already-adapted storyline and putting your own take on it. Here was how it was laid out
The Setting: a ranch in the Sonoran Desert, North America
The Time: the 21st Century
The Characters:- Judge Lawrence Wargrave, 70, a retired courtroom judge. Accused of sending an innocent man to his death.
- Miss Vera Claythorne, 26, a pretty English secretary. Accused of causing her lover to shoot himself.
- Mr Philip Lombard, 34, muscular American tour guide. Accused of killing five women in New York City.
- Dr Alessandro Ramirez, 32, hunky, handsome Italian doctor. Accused of killing the wife of his homosexual lover.
- Miss Gloria Gamble, 23, beautiful Hollywood actress. Accused of murdering a fellow actress, her rival.
- Miss Jane Blore, 56, eccentric British travel author. Accused of poisoning her husband.
- Sir John Mandrake, 64, stiff-upper-lip British peer. Accused of causing the death of his wife's lover.
- Tony Marston, 20, upcoming singer with no fame whatever. Accused of causing the death of a young girl by introducing her to drugs.
- Arnett Rodgers, 60, large, lumbering American with an alcohol problem. Accused of causing an elderly employer to slip in the shower and later die from injury.
- Junie Rodgers, 26, his much younger, bullied, timid wife. Accused of causing an elderly employer to slip in the shower and later die from injury.
My adaptation was more of a horror thriller - yes, yes, yes, I know a lot of you don't like that idea, and to be honest, I'm not a huge fan either, but it actually worked very well. Yes, things had to be changedbut if stuff wasn't changed, then it wouldn't be an "adaptation". I do love the 1987 Russian version, and I'm looking forward to the upcoming 2015 version, but it never hurts to change things a little, while still remaining true to the spirit of the original story.
The deaths were kept the same, mostly. Marston and Mrs Rodgers (poisoned), Rodgers (axed), Gloria (injected), and Wargrave ("shot") were all retained. Several were changed - Sir John was butchered in the desert during the search, leading to an extensive all-day search for him; Dr Ramirez is discovered in a cupboard by Vera, his throat slit; and Jane Blore is decapitated, and her head is positioned outside Vera's bedroom window, with a pair of teddy-bear ears on a headband over her head. I also retained the novel's original ending, word-for-word.
I know that some of these ideas will not please everyone. But tell me what you think about the sound of it, and if you would like to read it..I did it ages ago and then only remembered it recently, reread it, and was interested by what I had written.
-
harryharman1996 — 10 years ago(December 04, 2015 08:30 AM)
I feel as if I'm being examined! Lol. The order of the deaths is linked to the past crimes the characters have committed. For example (and I realise I really didn't give much indication here, before I'm questioned on that too!), if we use the example of the General and Lombard - the General has sent his wife's lover to his death. As is indicated in the original story, his wife was unfaithful by having the affair, which in turn caused the General to act in this way (disclaimer- I AM NOT DEFENDING WHAT HE HAS DONE) and also, as his crime is in the distant past, he has suffered the longest out of the Ten Little Soldier Boys. Therefore, Mr Owen has decided to kill him off early in order to "put him out of his misery" (in my version at least). Whereas the later soldier boys, such as Lombard (who in my version killed five women who trusted him) have committed calculated, malign acts so as to boost their own egos / careers / reputations. This is why they are tortured more and more over the dreadful weekend, before their executions.
I hope this has cleared it up for you and helped your confusion. I ought to have been a little clearer for you to understand (I am a criminology graduate and so I have spent a lot of my time writing enormous (frequently repetitive and dull) reports and so I forget to explain myself sometimes out of exhaustion from years of doing that.lols). If you would like to read the script, let me know. I just thought it might be interesting for some. Wrote it four years ago and forgot about it.. -
Jimmy-128 — 10 years ago(December 04, 2015 12:00 PM)
I wasn't confused at all, actually; my questions were indeed leading ones. I call your attention to the crimes for your Vera and Miss Brent analogs.
The original Vera is one of the last to go because her crime is arguably the most heinous: the deliberate murder of a child entrusted to her care. Your version has her driving an adult man to suicidenot to put too fine a point on it, it's the watered down version of Emily Brent's crime that the 1960s and 1970s movies use.
In point of fact, the reason the final five (Armstrong, Blore, Vera, Lombard, Wargravefor argument's sake, I'm making 'Mr. Owen' to be a separate person) are the final five is because they not only cause another person's death, they abuse their position of authority and/or are derelict in their duty. Armstrong operates on a woman while he's drunk, Blore deliberately commits perjury (if you remember from the book, 'Mr. Owen' specifically singles this out as particularly heinous), Vera kills the boy, Lombard abandons men under his command, and Wargrave deliberately sentences an innocent man to die.
Miss Brent, MacArthur, Marston, and the Rogerses don't measure up. Marston dies first because he doesn't actively choose to do wrong, as Lombard and Blore do and even as Miss Brenthe simply does and thinks about it afterwards, if at all. Mrs. Rogers is next because, as you point out, she's bullied by her husband into the crime. MacArthur's third because he's as much sinned against as sinning. Rogers and Miss Brent are the next to go because Rogers' murder is a garden-variety one, and Miss Brent, while callous, is also completely within her rights to fire her servant girl over the girl's pregnancy.
And looking over your list of crimes, I really don't see that kind of distinction. OK, the Doctor has a male lover and he kills the lover's wifeis that really so much worse than Rogers letting his employer die? Why did Mrs. Blore poison her husband? Did she want to inherit his moneyor did she find out he was going to leave her for a younger woman? Mr. Owen would certainly take different views of those motives when he was determining the order of death.
Also, I know it's the fashion to make an international cast for the story, but I've never watched any of the English-language movies without asking, "How the hell would Owen have found out about this?" If you read his confession at the end of the book, he details exactly how he found out about each of his victimshow would your Mr. Owen have found out about cases in at least three different countries?
I know I'm going overboard on this, but I personally think that this is Christie's absolute best, and the movies have all disappointed me a little (or, in the case of the 70s crapfest, a LOT). Too many people get the what right, but they completely forget the why. -
harryharman1996 — 10 years ago(December 05, 2015 04:50 AM)
Right, I did go and reread the script, and made these observations (mostly, I cannot remember what thoughts went into my head when I wrote them, so I may make a few assumptions:)
The Judge's crime was identical to that of the book.
Dr Ramirez killed his lover's wife in a similar manner to that of the book - she arrived at the operating table and he saw his chance as "too good to miss" in his own words. He was not an alcoholic, as in the original.
Jane Blore's is, I admit, vague in my first post. She was in love with another man, and her husband wouldn't agree to a divorce, so she poisoned him. Looking back, that's the one crime I find difficult to believe.
Vera's is watered down, as you say. She made her lover terminally miserable by threatening to tell his wife and an assortment of other activities and caused him to pull the trigger on himself. I really ought to have stuck to the original there.
Lombard's is odd - no motivation for killing the five women, just that he "liked" killing.
Gloria (Emily Brent) hired a hitman to fire at a rival actress who had been given a part in a movie that Gloria wanted.
Marsden denies blame for causing the young woman to die - he merely introduced her to drugs.
Sir John (General) is a variation on the original - his wife had an affair, so he confronted her lover (who was a gold digger) and paid him off. When his wife was deserted by the younger man, she was so distraught that she committed suicide.
The former employer of Mr & Mrs Rodgers was a very frail old woman who could not move without assistance. They encouraged her into "trying to do things herself" in a falsely sweet manner - once she was in the shower, with the slippery tiles and her weak legs, she didn't stand a chance. She fell and broke her hip when the Rodgers were allegedly "out of the house" and died later. The old woman was so traumatised and dementia-ridden that she could recall nothing of the event.
So, I accept your points. A lot of these crimes don't really follow with the original (Vera, Gloria, Lombard, etc.) I guess it goes to show that what can seem like a good idea at the time can change in a few years. I wonder if the directors of the 1970s or 1980s film versions think that. -
maggieameanderings — 10 years ago(March 16, 2016 11:45 PM)
The Setting: a ranch in the Sonoran Desert, North America
And the reason people don't just leave is? Pack up some supplies and get out of there. At the very least, leave the ranch and go hide in the desert.
It's the desert, not a death trap. People hike and camp in deserts all the time.
What reason do the people in your version have for staying there at the house to be murdered when they can just walk away?
What made "And Then There Were None" work is the people couldn't get off the island. Also it meant that the killer had to be one of them and couldn't come from the outside. In your story, why would the police believe the killer couldn't have come from the outside? Why wouldn't the participants believe the killer was someone from outside the house?